Seems a fairly simple Yes Yes vote from my reading. Bit silly it even has to go to a referendum.
Its also nice for there to be something new for the awkward squad to get their teeth into
2 Likes
That’s all well and good, but for that relationship to be “equal” with marriage is nonsense.
The tweet below perfectly demonstrates the madness of even attempting to equate a “durable relationship” to that of actual marriage…
2 Likes
You’re equating an ‘affair’ with a seperated person in a new relationship,
Is it all about money?
You have no idea what youre talking about. A 1 year old doesn’t need independence ffs 
4 Likes
Are you married Gary?
I don’t know if he is or isn’t but what business is it of yours?
Fuck off and mind your own business.
Bit silly that a referendum is needed to change the constitution?
1 Like
To my reading, the second vote appears to be for no particular reason, the state currently does nothing to support women who stay at home, and will surely continue to do nothing no matter the wording
I’d love a plain speaking honest description of what this vote is about.
It opens door to full tax individualisation.
The position is that where a couple is cohabiting, rather than married or in a civil partnership, they are treated as separate and unconnected individuals for the purposes of income tax. Each partner is a separate entity for tax purposes, therefore, cohabiting couples cannot file joint assessment tax returns or share their tax credits and tax bands in the same manner as married couples.
The basis for the current tax treatment of couples derives from the Supreme Court decision in Murphy vs. Attorney General (1980). This decision was based on Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution where the State pledges to protect the institution of marriage. The decision held that it was contrary to the Constitution for a married couple, both of whom are working, to pay more tax than two single people living together and having the same income. The Constitutional protection of Article 41.3.1 does not extend to non-married couples.
It is important to point out that if the tax treatment of married couples was to be extended to cohabiting couples, consideration would need to be given to the practicalities that would arise for Revenue if they were to administer such a system.
It would be very difficult for Revenue to administer a regime for cohabitants, similar to that for married couples. Married couples and civil partners have a verifiable official confirmation of their status. It would be difficult, intrusive and time-consuming to confirm declarations by individuals that they were actually cohabiting and to establish when cohabitation started or ceased.
There would also be legal issues with regard to ‘connected persons’. To counter tax avoidance, ‘connected persons’ are frequently defined throughout the various Tax Acts. The definitions extend to relatives and children of spouses and civil partners. This would be very difficult to prove and enforce in respect of persons connected with a cohabiting couple where the couple has no legal recognition.
To the extent that there are differences in the tax treatment of the different categories of couples, such differences arise from the objective of dealing with different types of circumstances while at the same time respecting the constitutional requirements to protect the institution of marriage.
There may be an advantage in tax legislation for a married couple or civil partners as regards the extended rate band and the ability to transfer credits. However, the legal status for married couples has wider consequences from a tax perspective both for themselves and persons connected with them.
Furthermore, the difference in tax treatment for married couples is not confined to Income Tax, and is also a feature of other tax heads, such as Capital Acquisitions Tax. Therefore, any changes in the tax treatment could only be considered in the broader context of the tax system and future social and legal policy development, given that the legal status of married couples has wider consequences than from a tax perspective.
1 Like
Why shouldn’t she? The wife could have divorced him if she wanted to
Were you a goalkeeper in a past life, a dodgy one maybe?
2 Likes
Is his argument it’s good for a 1 year old etc to go spend all day in a creche away from his mother because they might become too attached to her? 
2 Likes
What are you on about?
Leinster Senior League was the highest standard I ever played, never been a ‘keeper though.
Boarding school at 5.
I’m sure some on here went to aravon
Seems to be… Despite it being known the world over that the earlier you break the maternal bond the more likely it is that the child will experience some level of stunted emotional development.
Be interesting to see a graph correlating the growth of 2 parent employment and the rise in mental health issues amongst young people.
@the_man_himself 's generation are all riddled with mental health issues.
1 Like
The de-humanisation of society. These tatchellites are evil.
1 Like
It’s about getting rid of a reference to a woman’s life within the home in the constitution.
In a practical sense, how is the Government upholding this article at the moment?
By voting No what would I be protecting?
My wife would have loved to be/have been a stay at home mother, she took everything she was entitled to and long stints of unpaid leave but she’d have loved more. I never realised that the state would have cherished her ‘right’ to quit work
Basically nothing. It’s obviously an embarrassing anachronism in the constitution and should be gotten rid of.
1 Like