Go away with your nonsense that referendum was a clear mandate
YFG, student unions and cushy numbers in NGOs. The career path of a parasite
“NGOs” seems to be the new “freemasons” or “illuminati” or “WEF” or “globalists” or “Soros” for the conspiracists.
1 Like
Who in Government thought these two referendums were a good idea? 
Peadar spot on there, these Yes voters want to give it the big ‘un on Mother’s Day yet take the word ‘woman’ out of the constitution.
1 Like
I presume you demand St. Patrick be referenced in the constitution
Byrne is a thick as shit.
4 Likes
My bad I misheard him, he didn’t support bigamy.
He did however, keep a straight face while claiming someone already married, but seeing someone else, constitutes a “durable relationship”. That’s absolute nonsense and makes a mockery of the institute that is marriage.
1 Like
It’s quite common, couples may not get divorced for whatever reason or take a long time to get divorced but each person may be in a different long term relationship, sure by your logic divorce makes a mockery of marriage
1 Like
I wouldn’t see that as a bad thing. Might give them a bit of independence rather than relying on their mammy until they find a wife like a lot of the previous generation
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