If we live together for five years am I entitled to half the house?
its a good change , if your with someone for a period of time you are essentially family , just because you didnt have a religious ceremony dosent make it less of a family
“…different types of family units…” – does that mean that one husband and his four wives will be a family now and will have constitutional rights and protections (e.g.. social welfare payment per head)?
It’s funny how some of the people who are against it view it as an attack on marriage. Even though that’s not what it will do.
So a common law relationship carries equal weight to a legally committed one. Sure, if you are in a common law situation you can legally guard equity by agreement in writing witnessed or by a will.
I hope it passes. I don’t currently have a family according to the Irish constitution so that would be nice to get.
If Yes wins, will people in “other durable relationships” need to be separated for 2 out of the previous 3 years in order to be allowed to “divorce” or be seen as separated in the eyes of the state, or that solely a rule that applies to married couples?
The question of equal standing is not clear to me on this.
What will this allow thats not already possible if it passes?
We ready have state marriage, pre-nups, wills and lawful agreements (tenants, licensee) what else are they trying to allow?
“Durable family relationship” is best defined as a goldmine for the legal profession for the next twenty years.
No-one knows what it means, and the constitutional amendment doesn’t define it. This means that every single word, comma and full stop will be fought over in the supreme court for at least twenty years.
“State must guard with special care and protect against attack”
What?
I need to be a citizen to vote for this, no?
Why not get married? Honest question?
The “other durable relationships” is an unacceptable term here. For example if two friends were living together, and one owned a house, and let the other live there rent free. This may been seen as a durable relationship, so the other person would be entitled to half the house?
If people don’t want to get married for whatever reason, this is effectively forcing marriage?
Is there a source for this? I can see something about an independent referendum guide in the top right hand corner, but that’s the only half identifiable source that I can see, but that doesn’t even identify who published this.
Great news
Yes yes from me
It would be helpful to know what exactly are these constitutional protections, and how will families exactly be defined without marriage.. like, is living together for a few months enough? Do you have to live together? There’s so much detail that’s important here.
We really… really do elections well in this country. Very clear and unambiguous information.
Great work from the Election Commission
‘Other durable relationships’ needs to be more explicitly defined by what it is rather than what it isn’t. The ambiguity is putting people off.
Will this impact tax?
Well that is a no
This Referndum is very confusing to me and I’m not sure what the effects of the changes will mean.
It’s simple : if yes, then “x” if no, it’s x minus y over xyz times position of x related to its starting position. Or to put it another way: change for yes over no. No change for yes */ yes( * previously no) or no ÷ yes/no. Jesus… its not brain surgery.
I blame the Greeks, Father. I hate them feckin’ Greeks!
A lot of people in here saying they would like the meaning of “other durable relationships” defined in more clear terms. The reality, as with all aspects of the Constitution is that this has to be defined in a balance between the legislature and judiciary. The implications of a specific restriction in the text of the Constitution are significant and can be far reaching.
Think of the repeal of the 8th amendment. One of the chief arguments that I think resounded in that was the fact that because the Constitution was so flat in its prohibition on abortion, it fettered Judges and ultimately medical professionals in allowing for it where the lives of mothers were in danger.
We need the Constitution to be less restrictive so that common sense and surrounding circumstances can be taken into account where the law is applied
25 comments
Seems like a sensible change to make.
What is a “durable family relationship”?
If we live together for five years am I entitled to half the house?
its a good change , if your with someone for a period of time you are essentially family , just because you didnt have a religious ceremony dosent make it less of a family
“…different types of family units…” – does that mean that one husband and his four wives will be a family now and will have constitutional rights and protections (e.g.. social welfare payment per head)?
It’s funny how some of the people who are against it view it as an attack on marriage. Even though that’s not what it will do.
So a common law relationship carries equal weight to a legally committed one. Sure, if you are in a common law situation you can legally guard equity by agreement in writing witnessed or by a will.
I hope it passes. I don’t currently have a family according to the Irish constitution so that would be nice to get.
If Yes wins, will people in “other durable relationships” need to be separated for 2 out of the previous 3 years in order to be allowed to “divorce” or be seen as separated in the eyes of the state, or that solely a rule that applies to married couples?
The question of equal standing is not clear to me on this.
What will this allow thats not already possible if it passes?
We ready have state marriage, pre-nups, wills and lawful agreements (tenants, licensee) what else are they trying to allow?
“Durable family relationship” is best defined as a goldmine for the legal profession for the next twenty years.
No-one knows what it means, and the constitutional amendment doesn’t define it. This means that every single word, comma and full stop will be fought over in the supreme court for at least twenty years.
“State must guard with special care and protect against attack”
What?
I need to be a citizen to vote for this, no?
Why not get married? Honest question?
The “other durable relationships” is an unacceptable term here. For example if two friends were living together, and one owned a house, and let the other live there rent free. This may been seen as a durable relationship, so the other person would be entitled to half the house?
If people don’t want to get married for whatever reason, this is effectively forcing marriage?
Is there a source for this? I can see something about an independent referendum guide in the top right hand corner, but that’s the only half identifiable source that I can see, but that doesn’t even identify who published this.
Great news
Yes yes from me
It would be helpful to know what exactly are these constitutional protections, and how will families exactly be defined without marriage.. like, is living together for a few months enough? Do you have to live together? There’s so much detail that’s important here.
We really… really do elections well in this country. Very clear and unambiguous information.
Great work from the Election Commission
‘Other durable relationships’ needs to be more explicitly defined by what it is rather than what it isn’t. The ambiguity is putting people off.
Will this impact tax?
Well that is a no
This Referndum is very confusing to me and I’m not sure what the effects of the changes will mean.
It’s simple : if yes, then “x” if no, it’s x minus y over xyz times position of x related to its starting position. Or to put it another way: change for yes over no. No change for yes */ yes( * previously no) or no ÷ yes/no. Jesus… its not brain surgery.
I blame the Greeks, Father. I hate them feckin’ Greeks!
A lot of people in here saying they would like the meaning of “other durable relationships” defined in more clear terms. The reality, as with all aspects of the Constitution is that this has to be defined in a balance between the legislature and judiciary. The implications of a specific restriction in the text of the Constitution are significant and can be far reaching.
Think of the repeal of the 8th amendment. One of the chief arguments that I think resounded in that was the fact that because the Constitution was so flat in its prohibition on abortion, it fettered Judges and ultimately medical professionals in allowing for it where the lives of mothers were in danger.
We need the Constitution to be less restrictive so that common sense and surrounding circumstances can be taken into account where the law is applied