WHAT’S YOUR VOTE?
The nation goes to the polls on Friday March 8 for the double referendum on family and care. Here, we hear the arguments for the Yes and the No side.
JOSEPHA Madigan, TD, Minister of State and one of the key architects of the referendum, says we should vote Yes/yes.
For decades, we’ve spoken of the need for the removal of the archaic Article 41.2 from Bunreacht na heireann.
Now is the time for a Yes vote to finally see the anachronistic articles consigned to history.
A failure to pass these referenda will see the sexist, stereotypical language of yesteryear remain in our Constitution.
Bunreacht na heireann is a statement of our country’s fundamental values, and therefore should reflect those of modern society.
A double Yes is not just a symbolic gesture; it is a tangible step towards aligning our Constitution with the values and realities of contemporary Irish life.
The current wording in our Constitution reflects the Ireland of a bygone era.
A conservative, inward-looking society encapsulated by the marriage ban, mother and baby homes, and systemic discrimination against women.
It does not reflect the modernday Ireland, nor the progress made on women’s healthcare, equal pay and justice, among others.
While there is further work to do, this is progress we can be proud of.
We need a Constitution to be proud of. Friday’s proposed changes are in line with this progressive change. My journey in elected politics began in 2014, and during this period alone the Irish electorate have consistently helped bring our
Constitution up to date with our evolving values.
We have brought forward marriage equality, repealed the Eighth amendment, liberalised divorce laws, and removed blasphemy laws.
Yet Article 41.2 remains – out of date and legally meaningless
– a stubborn reminder of our incomplete journey towards true equality.
The Constitution does not seek to define the place of men and should not, therefore, seek to define the place of women.
Many parents, fathers and mothers, choose to stay at home. The State should support and recognise both, and that is what this referendum is about.
Becoming one of the first countries in the world to recognise care in our Constitution will be hugely symbolic, and will ensure that care within families or the home is valued, regardless of who undertakes the duties.
The passing of the care referendum will place an obligation on the State, and future governments, to strive to support care in the home.
The Irish word for strive, “dreim”, more accurately describes the motivation of this proposal, meaning to “progressively realise”.
A double Yes vote is imperative, not only to reflect the growth of Irish society, but to enrich our constitutional fabric.
ESTELLE Birdy, writer, author and feminist activist, says we should vote No/no.
The referendum proposes to add “durable relationships” to the constitutional definition of what constitutes a family.
The Government, however, has refused to define “durable relationships”.
This amendment is needed to protect unmarried cohabiting and lone-parent families and committed couples, we’re told.
In that case, why not say so – either in the amendment itself or in proposed legislation?
Confused about the meaning of durable relationships? You’re not alone.
Many of the Yes campaign’s cheerleaders have previously said they had no clue what it meant.
Now, it’s a case of: “It’ll be grand shur”— and we’ll leave it up to the courts. The choice to remain unmarried is as much a right as the choice to be married.
If this amendment passes, people could find themselves in a durable relationship that carries all the entitlements and responsibilities of a marriage without ever having consented to this.
Access to children, access to the farm, home, funds or estate of multiple former or deceased unmarried partners could all be the subject of court proceedings.
We simply don’t know what we’re getting. It’s no way to do law and it’s no way to treat the voting public.
In line with all previous surveys, an Amarach Research poll found two-thirds of mothers would prefer to stay at home and raise their kids, were finances not an issue.
The Constitution currently protects their right to choose to do this.
Article 41.2 recognises the value to society of women’s work in the home and states that no mother should be forced into the labour market, through “economic necessity”, if she’d prefer to stay at home with her kids. Should the amendment pass, this Article will disappear.
The Yes side can’t produce a single example of a woman whose life has been limited by Article 41.2.
The women whose choices have been impeded, not by the Constitution but by the neoliberal policies of successive governments, are those who don’t enjoy the luxury of having enough money to pay the rent, feed their families and stay at home to look after them.
Several legal experts have stated that this clause underpins current and could underpin future financial protections for mothers and other carers in the home.
Its proposed replacement is a gender-neutral clause that puts all the responsibility for care onto the family.
Carers didn’t ask to be insulted and consigned to lifelong, largely unpaid, labour within the family.
In these circumstances, a No/no vote is the only sensible choice.
Wording in our Constitution reflects Ireland of a bygone era JOSEPHA MADIGAN MINISTER OF STATE
Choice to remain unmarried as much a right as to be married ESTELLE BIRDY WRITER AND ACTIVIST