My family was treated as lesser in law until we got married
ON Friday, the country will have the opportunity to make two important changes to our Constitution – one on the definition of the family and the other on the importance of care. When it comes to family, our 1937 Constitution recognises and protects just one form – a family based on marriage.
This is hardly surprising, given the deeply conservative era in which the Constitution was written. But, 90 years later that definition is hopelessly out of date.
We all know families in our communities who do not meet this strict constitutional definition. In fact, more than 40% of births now take place outside of marriage. These families are not secondclass families and they deserve constitutional recognition.
Voting for this change will not in any way undermine the value of marriage or dilute anyone’s existing rights. Instead, it will expand those protections to approximately one million people – like singleparent families and cohabiting couples.
This is an issue I feel particularly strongly about because of my own lived experience. I lived for many years in Australia with my partner. While we were there, we had two children without getting married. Our rights and entitlements didn’t hinge on a marriage certificate. Our family was treated in law as equal.
When we moved back to Ireland, I was heavily pregnant with my third child and the difference was instantaneous. As a family, we had far fewer protections and far less security. Ultimately, we got married sooner than we had intended – because our family was treated as lesser in law.
When I vote Yes on Friday, I will be doing so because I want every family in Ireland – in every shape and size – to feel equally represented and protected. The current wording is exclusionary, and discriminatory, and it is long past time it was changed.
My feelings about the second referendum are much more complex. The proposed change relates to care and the removal of the notorious ‘women in the home’ section of our Constitution.
When it comes to the latter sexist clause, there have been some attempts in recent weeks to rehabilitate it as a defence of women and an important recognition of their work in the home.
This is nonsense.
To be clear, Article 41.6 of the Constitution states: ‘The State recognises that by her life within the home, a woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.’
It goes on to say that: ‘The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.’
The Constitution unambiguously tells us a woman’s life is in the home – and then pledges to ensure that no woman will be forced to ‘neglect their duties’ in the home, or go out to work, because of concerns about money.
THE catch, which quickly became apparent, was that this clause could not be relied on in court by women who wanted to remain at home but had things like a mortgage, rent and bills to pay for. So, not only is it sexist and anachronistic, it is legally useless. The constitutional equivalent of a patronising pat on the head.
The Government has proposed replacing this antiquated text in our Constitution with an article that expressly values care, whether that care is provided by men or women. Regrettably, while a Citizens Assembly overwhelmingly voted for wording which obliged the State to support care in the home, and the community, the Government opted only ‘to strive’ to support the former.
I fully acknowledge that the wording the Government has chosen is not strong enough. The Social Democrats sought to amend it so the State would be obliged to live up to its obligations to support care in the community. The Government voted against our amendment and cut short the usual legislative oversight process to limit debate on the issue.
The result is we have been left with a choice between leaving misogynistic language in the Constitution or replacing it with wording on care that is an improvement but should have gone much further. Referendums involve a binary choice and we can only vote on what is before us.
The new wording is better than the current text – but I understand the anger and disappointment of disability activists and groups at the inadequate nature of the text.
It is important to note there is nothing in the Constitution stopping the Government from vindicating the rights of disabled people to live independent lives in their communities.
As it stands, disability services are threadbare and supports are almost non-existent. This is something that could be changed tomorrow if the political will was there.
The Government could also immediately ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While the Convention lays out a series of disability rights the Government is supposed to uphold – the Optional Protocol allows individuals make complaints to the UN if the State fails to vindicate those rights.
IT is telling that Ireland was the last country in the EU to ratify the Convention in 2018 – and, six years later, is still refusing to adopt accountability measures for its failure to live up to the commitments in that treaty. Disabled people deserve more than platitudes and empty promises. Ratifying the Optional Protocol would be transformative and it is something that can be done now.
Under questioning by my party leader Holly Cairns this week, the Taoiseach finally committed to ratifying Optional Protocol before a general election. But disabled people have waited long enough. What we really need is for the Taoiseach to name the date this will happen.
In giving Friday’s referendums my qualified support, I believe voting Yes: Yes will be a step in the right direction.
However, if we really want to provide the adequate supports and services for families, carers and people with disabilities, it will take more than constitutional amendments – it will require a change in Government.