I’m a bit perplexed about how much people are offended by the ‘durable relationship’ term.
As far as I can see the only real alternative is some arbitrary figure relating to the length of the relationship or something similar, sure the awkward squad lost their shit over arbitrary numbers in the recent past.
I’m still waiting on an explanation of what we are voting for in the other one though, like what do we currently do to encourage women to stay at home, what have we to protect?
I think the government should have proposed the opposite to what they wanted. Wait until all their opponents go against them and then change tack half way through the campaign.
The alternative is to leave it as is
That elected governments/political parties haven’t been able to live up to an admirable ideal in the constitution isn’t grounds to remove the aim
Glad to see you seem to have been able to have the personal constitution to nail your colours to mast
One: That is the no vote option. I was referring to the wording
I’d be hoping @Bandage will get inheritance rights if we pass this amendment and the life partner can leave the house to them and on that basis it’s a yes/yes from me.
Are we adopting the EU definition? Has this been outlined or defined by anyone on the “Yes” side as being a consequence of this vote, it might even be helpful
We aren’t specifically adopting anything because there is no specific legislation that would reference the wording. It’s a framework for the courts and legislators to consider.
So we’re setting down the road of unintended consequences. Let the courts figure it out some time in the future. Where is the actual necessity for this?
Can you ladybird this for me please? I still have got around to reading up on the referendum.
I’d be hoping people in durable relationships like yourself would ultimately have the same rights as wives in a marital relationship
There isn’t a dictionary at the back of the constitution. Everything in there is interpreted as part of legislation and court judgements.
In the case of these amendments there is no proposal to revoke existing legislation or introduce new legislation. They’re updating the constitution to avoid unwittingly excluding people from future legislation.
whats the definition?
if theres no clear definition then there absolutely is need for a legislation saver
so why wont roderick release the minutes of those meetings?
but the incentive for marriage is significantly diminshed
no it doesnt, it weakens the already weak protection offered and could have easily been fixed by just replacing woman with parent/guardian/carer
I’d hate for people in my situation to be unwittingly excluded from future legislation. It’s a a yes/yes for me. Thank you @Fagan_ODowd & @Rocko.
I often stay awake at night worrying for you @Bandage that you will be put out on the road if anything happens the life partner
These are spurious and nonsensical arguments.
We don’t draft legislation to define terms in the constitution. That would be ridiculous. It’s a fabrication of an argument to try and construct some absurd notion on which to resist any progress.
You’re waffling on about non existent legislation for a couple of weeks here. There is no proposed legislation.
Which is it? Again the necessity escapes me
Do couples still send Christmas cards?
The full implication of referring to durable relationships alongside marriage in the Constitution through next month’s referendum on the family would be interpreted in the courts by “hard cases”, the chair of the Electoral Commission has said.
Ms Justice Marie Baker said terminology introduced into the Constitution had to be “specific but not too specific,” to allow for examples “that haven’t yet been considered”.
The judge said interpretation of what was a durable relationship would be somewhat subjective. “A relationship is durable if it’s committed… Are you invited as a couple to weddings, do people send you postcards, Christmas cards to both of you?” Ms Justice Baker said.
A recent debate in the Dáil heard that polygamous relationships and “throuples” will not be covered in the proposed expanded concept of the family in the upcoming referendum.
READ MORE
Ms Justice Baker said she was aware of some of the “humorous” questions that had arisen. “It’s debate and that’s good, it’s healthy, people will inform themselves… I’m not concerned about that. The worst thing that could happen is nobody cares about this,” she said.
The commission, set up last year to provide independent information during referendums, on Thursday launched its campaign in advance of the two votes due to take place on March 8th.
The first referendum proposes expanding the definition of family in the Constitution to recognise durable relationships, such as cohabiting couples and their children. The second referendum proposes the replacing of language around “women in the home” in the Constitution with language recognising care within families.
Ms Justice Baker said the commission would be providing people with objective information on the votes, having replaced the Referendum Commission, which was previously set up before referendums and then stood down.
The Supreme Court judge said part of the legislation giving the commission “real teeth” to tackle online misinformation had not yet been commenced into law. The regulatory powers would allow the commission to go to the High Court to seek orders directing social media companies to take down misinformation or disinformation on their platforms.
oh here we go rocko about to power ireland with virtue signalling crap. cant answer my post so goes immediately for the ad hom, the sign of a beaten docket
i know theres no pending legislation, i was saying that there should be a saver, as there is in other parts of the constitution, to provide for durable relations being definied in law by the people we elect to write the laws rather than leaving it to the courts to define. in a proper world, people should know what theyre voting for rather than some nonsense like “sure we’ll leave it to the courts.”
Those two things aren’t contradictory.
The necessity is that the language in the constitution has fallen behind the times. It’s out of step with how most people view the family today so we have a chance to correct that.
For the uber Catholics I can understand how this is challenging. So a no vote is understandable. For anyone else worried about loose language etc I think you’re paying too much attention to scare mongering and are happy to potentially leave people isolated.
The actual implications are very narrow today. Perhaps a Jehovah’s Witness unmarried couple with a child who today don’t have the right to stop a blood transfusion in their child might gain that right in the future as they may now be a family. But that’s the sort of immediate direct implication that one might expect - i.e… practically nothing.
The abortion referendum was preceded by a policy paper on what abortion legislation might look like.