Referendum!

[springbrigid]

Anyone inclined to give an opinion? I am leaning towards a yes/no vote, the yes to remove what I see as sexist language in the constitution, the no because the government are so appalling in terms of providing services and rights to disabled citizens and I feel the clause is paternalistic and pushes care on families yet again

https://archive.is/Dg6bU

Here's an excellent article by Brenda Power for the UK Times. Apologies if it has been posted already upthread.

https://archive.is/Dg6bU

@VoteNONO - yes, I agree, she did make some excellent points about the wording and I fully agree that the wording is too vague, which makes me very nervous. I would just like to hear some voices that are not extremely socially conservative. The Iona institute are utterly abhorrent to my mind and agreeing with them in anything makes me nervous and second guess myself, which is, I know, a little irrational as agreeing with them on one thing does not mean I agree with them on everything.

I started off as definitely No, No but have shifted a little. I need to decide if the potential unintended consequences of the caring one outweigh the massive (to me) benefit of removing the woman in the home clause.

I'm a bit more definite on the family one as I feel I can probably hold my nose over agreeing with the Iona institute and their ilk given my serious concern over the vagueness of the wording.

Also in defence of Maria Steen, she is a Catholic, from a Catholic country with conservative views. Nothing wrong with that. They are her beliefs, just the same as Muslims, Hindus & atheists are entitled to theirs.

She is also an archetict & a barrister, again proof that Irish women are not chained to the sink & can have high flying careers.
Currently she is a stay at home mother homeschooling her children because she can. The current constitution allows for that.

As Maria also pointed out this unnecessary referendum is costing the state 23 million euro! She challenged Michael that the 23 million wasted on this referendum should have been spent on building care homes.

I really don't see the issue with the 'woman in the home' clause. I don't find it insulting or offensive. It has been confimed that it does not mean "a woman's place is in the home" Yes, the wording is outdated but that can be said for the entire constitution surely? It was written so long ago. It's the sentiment behind the language that matters. Our legal experts have managed to interpret the constitution in the context of present day situations, that's never been an issue before. I'd rather a slightly outdated wording of the acknowledgement of the unique role of mothers than a wishy washy replacement. It's still No/No for me.

I will be voting no to both.

I am not against Constitutional change but not happy with the changes proposed here.

Durable relationships is too vague a term.

The care one I am very angry about. I am a carer and the proposed wording is insulting, it really is. I won't vote to replace the current wording with something I think is worse. I hope others will back carers and people with disabilities but I don't think enough people see this for what it is. They think it's progressive. For people like me it is not. The government support isn't there anyway and this pushes things back on to families even more. I could cry with anger and despair.

@OchonAgusOchonOh I do get where you're coming from.

My dh was very much on the fence (despite me in his ear constantly!) but the points made last night by Maria & Martin's obvious lack of understanding of the wording made up his mind for him.

Between Martin's gormless carry on last night & Leo's stance yesterday on morning tv that care is the responsibility of the family not the state I think the two of them have tanked the yes campaign.

RTE are being very clever in making sure the 'no' arguments (that they are obliged to broadcast) are all delivered by people like McDowell and Iona representatives that a lot of people mistrust because of their past behavior wrt different issues. Skillful stage-management.

Don't let the messengers distract you from the message.

LV et all want the importance of the home removed from the constitution, and they want to push the responsibility for organising (and sometimes delivering) care onto a vague entity derived from durable relationships.

Easy changes to 'women and men' instead of 'woman' (echoing the later clauses about the right to work) and to marriage as 'a' rather than 'the' foundation for the family weren't used. Why not? They'd almost certainly have passed triumphantly.

As Maria said last night 32 million is being spent running this referendum which could have been given directly to build care facilities.

Maria said if the care bill passes, carers will still wake up the following morning with no extra support, no extra funding & no government commitment due to the wishing washy wording "strive" which means they'll attempt not guarantee.

Also Leo yesterday said on morning tv that care is family responsibility not the state.

I have no issue with her being a fundamentalist catholic. That is her choice and I respect her right to her views and beliefs. However, I fundamentally disagree with any religion having a say in our laws. I also disagree with you that Ireland is a catholic country with conservative views. It may have been in the past. Thankfully, we have moved on. While there is still a high percentage who identify as catholics, a very high percentage of those do not abide by, or agree with, catholic teachings in their daily lives.

That's fine. You don't find it insulting. I do.

They got more than they bargained for with Maria Steen lady night, she made mince meat of Mehole & so close to voting day. There is no comeback from that.

The main take away for my (undecided prior to last night) dh is that the constitution trumps legislation.

Yes, I agree about the poor choice of speakers.

I will probably hold my nose over agreeing with the likes of the Iona institute and vote No for the family one but I'm still not sure on the woman in the home one. I know the arguments for and against. I just need to spend some time deliberating on where the scales ends up for me.

@OchonAgusOchonOh I know what you are saying completely.
However I think we all need to look at the bigger picture here, which you are doing, forget about who is delivering the messages & listen to the very grave ramifications that could come about if these laws pass.

The government cannot & will not answer. I honestly don't think they know themselves as Martin proved again last night.

Also this government who cannot answer "What is a woman"? want women removed from the constitution speaks volumes to me. They are anti women to the core.

Fundamentalism is a Protestant (originally Presbyterian) movement. It is not possible to be a Fundamentalist Catholic. Devout yes, observant yes, committed yes, strict yes. Fundamentalist no.

@OchonAgusOchonOh , I note you are someone who is liberal and are therefore feeling you should vote Yes Yew because that is the side of the liberals. As someone who campaigned for many liberal changes to Irish law over the past 35 years, I never thought I would be on the same side as the Iona Institute.

But, after Repeal, I saw many allies desert women and start campaigning against women and for Trans rights. I am also a SAHM with a child with SEN and I want my unique position as a mother , a position that no man can hold and a position that has been sacrificed on the alter of progress by many feminist organisations, to be retained in the constitution.

We have so few protections as women and mothers in Ireland, and after the GRA of 2015 we have fewer still. I will continue to fight for the few remaining rights women and mothers have.

@Iloveshihtzus your beautiful, heartfelt words really touched me. I agree with you wholeheartedly as a mother myself & thinking of my own lovely mother.

This government is hellbent on trying to remove the most precious word in the dictionary from our constitution.

@OchonAgusOchonOh
I need to decide if the potential unintended consequences of the caring one outweigh the massive (to me) benefit of removing the woman in the home clause.

Do you mind me asking what benefit will be gained for women in removing this wording?
Apart from the optics maybe I am not seeing an actual benefit. I think the current wording doesn't give any benefits either, but perhaps that will change if the case pending in the Supreme Court is successful.
I often thought that, for example, maternity leave, which is very much sex based, is very unfair to women on lower incomes. Only those who can afford it can avail of the additional entitlement of the unpaid leave which you would imagine is against the current wording as it sits. I wonder why this was never challenged as it seems to discriminate based on the current wording.
I was fortunate enough to be able to work part time when DC were younger, DH also worked part time for a period of time. I don't think that is a luxury my own DC will be able to afford if they become parents, especially if they aspire to actually own their own home. But I think that maybe the "economic necessity' reference is a more important than the removal of the the current language.
I also found myself putting on my tin hat when I heard Martin mention the importance of gender neutral language because, sadly, that is not good for women

@festivefavorites Maria countered that at the end when she said in her closing argument that women are becoming degendered. Delighted she got that in.
And why shouldn't there be gendered language we are women. Is the word "men" also going to be removed on the basis of equality?

About the woman in the home/care one.
I do understand that you find the language regarding a woman's duties disturbing but I think it is probable that you aren't bound by those words. That you and your daughters have been free to study and to work outside the home?

There is another group of people who don't have those options and whose lives are much smaller because of illness, disability and caring duties. Unfortunately it is not possible to vote yes in this referendum without negatively impacting them. Not in a symbolic way, but in real terms.

I would ask people to be practical here. Not to put their ideals above the rights of those with disabilities and those who care for them. Please.

https://twitter.com/Berlinnaeus/status/1764610351788638264

What a vile, despiciple tweet from the Yes side. This is beyond the pale. The comments under the tweet say it all. And this person called all who disagreed muppets.

Also just to add that person Bernie Linnane is a LAR in Co Louth for the labour party.

That tweet needs to be retracted but it just goes to show how far the women hating Yes campaign are willing to stoop.

I often thought that, for example, maternity leave, which is very much sex based, is very unfair to women on lower incomes. Only those who can afford it can avail of the additional entitlement of the unpaid leave which you would imagine is against the current wording as it sits. I wonder why this was never challenged as it seems to discriminate based on the current wording.

What I am trying to say here is that all mothers are entitled to maternity leave, but some are entitled to more than others, despite the fact that all children are equal in the Constitution.

I personally don't feel offended by the mother in the home article. First of all, I think that it probably had a different meaning when it was written - most people lived on farms where the home would include many different forms of work for mothers to do. So I think that it was probably a different context. But now that I'm a mother myself, I do think that mothers have specific duties that can't be done by anyone else. Maternity leave, I think, includes duties that nobody but a mother can do, like breastfeeding and giving a new baby the physical closeness it needs to its mother. So I think there are duties in the home that are due some recognition. I wouldn't have thought that a decade ago, but that's my lived experience.

Interesting too that in the Irish form of the Constitution the word used is teaghlach, which doesn't translate as home at all. It means family or household. Puts a bit of a different slant on things.