Referendums no one wants.. there may be throuple ahead
COULD Ireland be the first country in Europe to recognise polygamy and throuples as legitimate family units?
Is it possible that Ireland will join the likes of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Bangladesh by allowing men to form families consisting of multiple wives?
Will the country become the laughing stock of the Western World by giving the green light to families made up of a woman and two men or other combinations?
The straight answer is we don’t know and neither does the Government which wants to insert the term “durable relationship” into the Constitution as the basis of family units.
Many legal experts, including former Justice Minister and eminent barrister Senator Michael Mcdowell, have warned that “it is not fanciful” to ask legitimate questions about “throuples” or three-way relationships becoming family units if the referendum is passed on March 8 – International Women’s Day. The Government has already admitted that there is no clear interpretation of what a “durable relationship” will mean or even provide a plausible rationale for wanting to insert such fuzzy wording into the Constitution.
Indeed when asked this week if the Government could guarantee that the courts will not interpret “durable relationships” to mean polygamy or to include it, Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe said he could not.
He added: “No Government can give a guarantee how our courts will interpret the Constitution.”
Then why change certainty for total ambiguity in a move that could have serious implications for the way families are recognised by the State and throw up unforeseen legal and financial consequences?
Independent TD and Leascheann Comhairle Catherine Connolly recently hit out at the “lack of clarity” around the amendments and what they seek to achieve.
Voicing concerns raised by the Free Legal Aid Centres she added that as currently worded the amendments will not lead to forcible rights and stronger constitutional protection for women, families and carers.
She added: “I have serious difficulty promoting this referendum and I repeatedly classify myself as a very strong feminist - but this is an insult and it’s a double insult to hold it on International Women’s Day.”
So far there has been very little public interest in the two referendums which Government ministers appear desperate to get passed.
One of the questions voters will be asked is expanding the definition of family, along with a proposal to remove a reference to marriage being an institution “on which the family is founded”.
Writing this week Senator Mcdowell stated the implications of the proposed amendments to constitutionally detach “family” from “marriage” are very real.
He pointed out issues, including the “division of business and farm assets, taxation law, immigration law, succession law, criminal law and pensions law.”
Others have pointed out that if the referendum is passed there is reason to believe an individual who has been in a long-term affair with a married man or woman could have a right to claim their relationship is, or had been, durable.
This would potentially raise questions about the division of an estate.
The other referendum will deal with the removal of the reference to the role of women in the home from the Constitution to be replaced with gender neutral language.
Instead it will propose to replace it with new words to recognise the role of care within families.
But in doing so the only reference to “woman” and “mothers” will be completely removed from the Constitution, although the term “men and women” is used elsewhere.
When many Coalition politicians can’t, or won’t, even define a woman, who can blame voters for being suspicious as to the real reason for pushing ahead with referendums that no one, apart from the Government, wants.
When Deputy Connolly, easily the most credible, thoughtful and articulate member of the Dail, finds it difficult to say yes, that alone should act as a warning to the public to say NO on March 8.
Only reference to ‘woman’ & ‘mothers’ will be removed completely