Family amendment – Yes: 42%, No: 23%, Don’t know: 35%
Care amendment – Yes: 39%, No: 24%, Don’t know: 36%
Very low turnout I’d imagine. Plus a lot of older folk are serial voters.
Kinda hope it’s no now for the laugh
Both should fail. And not because they’re not needed, but because we’re being asked to replace specific provisions with makey-uppy language designed to take power away from the people and place it firmly in politician’s and goverment hands. This idea of weakly-worded, mealy-mouthed referendum first, clarification later has got to be stopped.
I’m voting no because it’s been executed so horribly and no one seems to know the implications.
Hopefully Sinn Féin will rerun it with better language
I suspect the people least likely to vote in this are the ones who haven’t “regularised” their relationship status because they don’t need “a piece of paper” to justify their love for each other.
On the other hand, the deeply conservative ones who see this as an attack on marriage and the family could vote in force.
Add to that people who have genuine concerns over the legal meaning of a “durable relationship” where some estranged ex partner is trying to claim an inheritance or switch off someone’s life support.
So could well be a no on a low turnout.
Guillontined through the dail, short lead up to it to stop debate.
Michael McDowell saying vote no to both. I agree with him.
I do think it’ll be no because yes has such weak arguments for any change.
I don’t like the lack of definition of durable relationships. I even have no issue with the idea, just the lack of definition means when does it take effect?
I am married now, however previously I lived with someone else for a period before, (we had no kids), were we in a durable relationship? (She was great and was not right for me and I was not right for her )
I don’t like a relationship status being bestowed without consent or knowledge.
it’s there a minimum turnout for a change to go through?
Im not voting yes to something that the government is demonstrably lying about, and cannot even define a term they made up themselves, its a joke.
I don’t see a lot of argument for “no, yes”. Just get the states priority for women is home care changed and forget about changing definition of family. It was idiotic to couple these changes
[removed]
I’m definitely voting no now
I was yes yes but I haven’t got a clue now tbh.
I think I’m going to vote yes on the change to the definition of family. I think we need flexible wording to accommodate different families outside of marriage
As for the care amendments I very much agree with taking out the women in the home wording but what’s putting me off is all the care/disability groups and FLAC raising concerns over the wording and the impact it could have on them.
If they wanted an easy way to give people in durable relationships recognition under law they should allow civil partnerships.
Having looked into it, the language being used is vague as fuck and I don’t trust the government as far as I could throw them so its both nos for me until they use clear and concise wording in the document.
It’s a no from me. How can people vote for some ambiguous shit is beyond me.
I’m voting no. The government still hasn’t defined what a durable relationship is and frankly marriage is the most stable building block of society
Most people I have asked are voting double no.
Main reason is government have not done enough in providing information on thr matter
Honestly no doubt in my mind I’m voting No No . Very weak wording, and I’m suspicious AF
People advocating for a yes on the durable relationships referendum boggle my mind.
People seem to think that it’s about 20 year relationships with kids and for some reason they decided not to marry and get the benefits, but after someone dies they suddenly want the benefits. You can have some limited amount of sympathy for people like that, but nothing prevents them getting married for 300 eur if they want the legal cover, the tax implications and the benefits. Constitutional recognition is the bulk of the motivation for introducing marriage equality, compared to civil partnerships. Any couple can opt in to marriage.
But the referendum isn’t limited to cases like that.
Any politician declaring what will be covered and what won’t be covered is lying. They have no idea. Even if they know what legislation they want to pass, they don’t know how the courts will interpret it. They also don’t know what legislation future governments will pass and what the effect of that will be.
Even without changing the constitution the interpretation is changed over time. The widowers pension case shows that any fears people have about the wording are well founded. That case depended on equality rather than definition of family. Any durable relationship can be argued to be exactly like a marriage for equality reasons too. I’m sure it will be argued.
Imagine your vindictive ex wants to get at some asset you have. Your nice car, your apartment etc. You didn’t live together, but you were a couple for 2 years, your ex has holiday photos, photos of dinner with your family for birthdays, you discussed a future and kids because you are smart and it’s important to be on the same page.
If your not-marriage is treated like a marriage, then why wouldn’t your breakup be treated like a divorce? At least you can be brought through court for it. Your texts to your best friend would be subject to discovery, and it turns out you wrote “I think this is the one!” after your last holiday.
Whether you win or not, you’ll spend thousands on legal fees, probably have to sell your nice car to cover it, and probably settle out of court. That will be the case for thousands like you until the supreme court makes some decision about cases like that.
Nothing in the proposed amendment prevents any of that.
No one can decide whether or not they are in a durable relationship. That label will always be applied by some external actor, and maybe revenue and the dsp will come up with different answers for the same couple at the same time.
By contrast a marriage is voluntary and has understood implications. It happens on a particular date. Same with divorce.
Why would anyone want an amendment for getting the state involved in their relationship at a whim and non voluntarily with all that that can mean?
Honestly I’ve not heard one good argument for changing the constitution. Seeing a group of lawyers come out and say it will have serious reprecusions as its not thought out worries me. I’ll be voting No/No
Surprise? Who actually thinks these referendums are going to pass? Once the Irish Times poll last month indicated that those who read up on the issue were more likely to vote no, the trend to rejection is clear. These referendums are more akin to the Seanad abolition than same sex marriage or abortion – low turnout, and those that do are more engaged and sceptical.
26 comments
Our national papers are a disgrace.
From polling in the article:
Family amendment – Yes: 42%, No: 23%, Don’t know: 35%
Care amendment – Yes: 39%, No: 24%, Don’t know: 36%
Very low turnout I’d imagine. Plus a lot of older folk are serial voters.
Kinda hope it’s no now for the laugh
Both should fail. And not because they’re not needed, but because we’re being asked to replace specific provisions with makey-uppy language designed to take power away from the people and place it firmly in politician’s and goverment hands. This idea of weakly-worded, mealy-mouthed referendum first, clarification later has got to be stopped.
I’m voting no because it’s been executed so horribly and no one seems to know the implications.
Hopefully Sinn Féin will rerun it with better language
I suspect the people least likely to vote in this are the ones who haven’t “regularised” their relationship status because they don’t need “a piece of paper” to justify their love for each other.
On the other hand, the deeply conservative ones who see this as an attack on marriage and the family could vote in force.
Add to that people who have genuine concerns over the legal meaning of a “durable relationship” where some estranged ex partner is trying to claim an inheritance or switch off someone’s life support.
So could well be a no on a low turnout.
Guillontined through the dail, short lead up to it to stop debate.
Michael McDowell saying vote no to both. I agree with him.
I do think it’ll be no because yes has such weak arguments for any change.
I don’t like the lack of definition of durable relationships. I even have no issue with the idea, just the lack of definition means when does it take effect?
I am married now, however previously I lived with someone else for a period before, (we had no kids), were we in a durable relationship? (She was great and was not right for me and I was not right for her )
I don’t like a relationship status being bestowed without consent or knowledge.
it’s there a minimum turnout for a change to go through?
Im not voting yes to something that the government is demonstrably lying about, and cannot even define a term they made up themselves, its a joke.
I don’t see a lot of argument for “no, yes”. Just get the states priority for women is home care changed and forget about changing definition of family. It was idiotic to couple these changes
[removed]
I’m definitely voting no now
I was yes yes but I haven’t got a clue now tbh.
I think I’m going to vote yes on the change to the definition of family. I think we need flexible wording to accommodate different families outside of marriage
As for the care amendments I very much agree with taking out the women in the home wording but what’s putting me off is all the care/disability groups and FLAC raising concerns over the wording and the impact it could have on them.
If they wanted an easy way to give people in durable relationships recognition under law they should allow civil partnerships.
Having looked into it, the language being used is vague as fuck and I don’t trust the government as far as I could throw them so its both nos for me until they use clear and concise wording in the document.
It’s a no from me. How can people vote for some ambiguous shit is beyond me.
I’m voting no. The government still hasn’t defined what a durable relationship is and frankly marriage is the most stable building block of society
Most people I have asked are voting double no.
Main reason is government have not done enough in providing information on thr matter
Honestly no doubt in my mind I’m voting No No . Very weak wording, and I’m suspicious AF
People advocating for a yes on the durable relationships referendum boggle my mind.
People seem to think that it’s about 20 year relationships with kids and for some reason they decided not to marry and get the benefits, but after someone dies they suddenly want the benefits. You can have some limited amount of sympathy for people like that, but nothing prevents them getting married for 300 eur if they want the legal cover, the tax implications and the benefits. Constitutional recognition is the bulk of the motivation for introducing marriage equality, compared to civil partnerships. Any couple can opt in to marriage.
But the referendum isn’t limited to cases like that.
Any politician declaring what will be covered and what won’t be covered is lying. They have no idea. Even if they know what legislation they want to pass, they don’t know how the courts will interpret it. They also don’t know what legislation future governments will pass and what the effect of that will be.
Even without changing the constitution the interpretation is changed over time. The widowers pension case shows that any fears people have about the wording are well founded. That case depended on equality rather than definition of family. Any durable relationship can be argued to be exactly like a marriage for equality reasons too. I’m sure it will be argued.
Imagine your vindictive ex wants to get at some asset you have. Your nice car, your apartment etc. You didn’t live together, but you were a couple for 2 years, your ex has holiday photos, photos of dinner with your family for birthdays, you discussed a future and kids because you are smart and it’s important to be on the same page.
If your not-marriage is treated like a marriage, then why wouldn’t your breakup be treated like a divorce? At least you can be brought through court for it. Your texts to your best friend would be subject to discovery, and it turns out you wrote “I think this is the one!” after your last holiday.
Whether you win or not, you’ll spend thousands on legal fees, probably have to sell your nice car to cover it, and probably settle out of court. That will be the case for thousands like you until the supreme court makes some decision about cases like that.
Nothing in the proposed amendment prevents any of that.
No one can decide whether or not they are in a durable relationship. That label will always be applied by some external actor, and maybe revenue and the dsp will come up with different answers for the same couple at the same time.
By contrast a marriage is voluntary and has understood implications. It happens on a particular date. Same with divorce.
Why would anyone want an amendment for getting the state involved in their relationship at a whim and non voluntarily with all that that can mean?
Honestly I’ve not heard one good argument for changing the constitution. Seeing a group of lawyers come out and say it will have serious reprecusions as its not thought out worries me. I’ll be voting No/No
Surprise? Who actually thinks these referendums are going to pass? Once the Irish Times poll last month indicated that those who read up on the issue were more likely to vote no, the trend to rejection is clear. These referendums are more akin to the Seanad abolition than same sex marriage or abortion – low turnout, and those that do are more engaged and sceptical.