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

Sorry, my post was a bit confusing. I didn't mean the marriage ban came about because of the constitution or that it was required under the constitution.

I meant that the type of attitudes that resulted in the constitutional wording is the same as that which results in laws such as the marriage ban and that retaining the wording is de facto supporting these attitudes.

It was a case of read my mind, not what I wrote 😁.

I see. To be honest, I'd have no problem with a different change to the Constitution's wording here. Just not this change.
To my mind, it's going to do much more harm than good.

I know. If it was just a question of removing the wording, I would be a definite yes. However, I am concerned with the consequences of the replacement.

Yes! I'm sure Mothers Day would be abolished if she had her way.
Such an ill judged tweet, glad she get the reactions she did.

I think a simple deletion would pass no problem. A lot of voters seem either very conflicted by the choice on offer.

There were marriage bans all over Europe & were made on an economic basis. It was abolished 51 years ago here & has nothing to do with the constitution.

Yes, I know that. If you read my update, I am not claiming it was because of the constitution but rather the wording in the constitution is indicative of a mindset supports laws such as the marriage ban.

Yes but all over Europe …

I agree t's not straightforward by any means. Though, the fact that disability rights activists are against it has been a huge factor for me.
But I do get what you are saying, I think your reference to the loss of basic rights by women in places such as Afghanistan particularly resonates as it shows how tenuous these rights can be and perhaps we have a tendency to be complacent in that respect.

Presumably that was the mindset prevalent all over Europe at the time. That doesn't mean we need to have wording in our constitution that perpetuates that mindset.

I'd rather keep the wording about woman/mothers than the wishy-washy replacement which erases all mention of them.

Yeah, I mean I'd vote for deletion of it altogether, but not for it to remain but to do pretend modernisation by limply whimpering about "care" as though it's just something done by someone for some reason. It's not. It's done my mothers and women for the most part and we should get a shout out, because Dev was right - the common good cannot be achieved without the thankless and unappreciated work done by women. Personally, as I think about it these days, I prefer a proud reinterpretation of what it means to a gutless reformulation of the words.

But there are men who are carers. They are vastly outnumbered by women carers of course, but why should they be excluded by dint of numbers? Is their work any less deserving of constitutional protection?

Are they not currently entitled to everything that women are?

Yes. But you referred to women as carers above. I was saying there are also carers who are men. Idk that it should be exclusionary to either sex. 'Carers' should be enough.

I forgot to say, no I don't feel you are putting pressure on me. You are making your point in a respectful way, which I appreciate, as reading other people's perspectives is always helpful in making a decision. Thank you.

@DanielGault Wouldn't the male carers also be worried about the government's shifting of care responsibilities to family as they're doing with the wording here?

Thank you for that @OchonAgusOchonOh.

Sounds about right!

I'd say so, that is particularly worrying. Although it's not as if that's not going on in reality anyway, care services are atrocious in this country. My DD is preparing a PowerPoint on the arguments for and against in the ref, I was just with her discussing them. Between myself, herself and my H, we were talking ourselves in circles. For a referendum, I am amazed how little discussion and information there has been. I'm hoping for a low enough turn out that they have to do it a second time, properly.

There's no mention of women as carers at present. The word care is only in the proposed amendment @DanielGault.

The confusion this is causing goes to show that people shouldn't be voting yes for things they can't even understand.

I agree with that (doing it again).
It's a real muddle.

The constitution also came from a time when the State was building and providing houses in much greater (relative) numbers than it has in the last two decades, so that my Dublin grandmother, whose first decade of married life involved moving every six months as tenement lets were always short, had a semi-detached house with a little garden front and back - and sanitation. A woman who had 13 full-term pregnancies, and reared eight children to adulthood, she would have had limited scope for working outside the home anyway.

Leo Varadkar's recent assertion that the state should not be responsible for providing housing or education chilled my blood. But helped clarify why he doesn't want the constitution to give anyone a right to a home life.

Absolutely @janejeffer if in any doubt whatsoever vote No. Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

You'll be glad to hear I won't be voting. But saying people shouldn't be voting for things 'they can't understand' is a slippery slope. And tbh it's pretty patronising. 'understandings may vary' in a democracy.