Why I’m voting No: The referendum ‘undermines the concept of family’

MY NAME is Saoirse Ní Chonarain, I am the Aontú candidate for Tallaght central in the upcoming Local elections.

On March 8th Voters will choose Yes or No to two different but related proposals about the wording of the constitution.

I will be supporting a “No” vote. I believe that the language used is far too vague and that the implications and consequences will be far too great.

Neil Richmond himself stated that a serious consequence of changing the definition of family would be its effect on immigration law.

I believe this amendment is a virtue waving flag. The government is completely disconnected from the real lives of people and it is clear the government are not listening to what women are telling them about the reality of their lives here in Ireland.

Roderic O’Gorman has come out with statements that are complete mis-information that the constitution currently tells women “their place is in the home”, this is simply not true.

He states that the constitution is critical of women choosing to work outside the home, when examining article 41.2 it makes no such suggestion, yet the government continue to propagate this lie.

What it does state is that the government should support those being forced to work outside the home through economic necessity.

In the majority of cases this is due to the complete failures of the current government and the crisis they have created.

Article 45 reconfirms that the constitution does not state “A women’s place is in the home” but acknowledges the right of all citizens “men and women equally” to freely earn their livelihoods.

I agree that there should be some changes to the amendment, fathers could have been included as well as mothers at least as it exists it recognises the role these parents play .

This government is forcing parents through economic necessity to not have a choice on how they care for their children.

Currently the constitution protects the important role women play in society, raising families and managing households.

The first referendum that will take place on March 8th the government want to eliminate this protection under the claim that it is outdated, in doing so the amendment will also remove many references to women within our constitution.

The second referendum undermines the concept of family itself introducing the concept of durable relationships as a legal equivalency, a definition that they have failed to define.

I believe that under the current proposed amendments that the concept of women will be undermined.

The language is quite vague surrounding the definition of “durable relationships” and so broad that it is open to misuse.

Parental rights can be undermined by loosening the term “caregiver”. “Durable relationships” will lead to an increase in chain migration worsening the housing crisis that is already under so much strain.

The “Care” amendment would also delete provisions of the constitution which have in the past been relied on by the supreme court to invalidate income tax laws that were discriminatory against married people.

I believe this is a recipe for disaster. There is far too much uncertainty arising from the governments proposed amendments to ascribe to the courts the responsibility of determining what is meant by “durable Relationships”.

It is hard to imagine how the courts are expected to interpret the proposed amendment.

As it stands society can clearly distinguish the family rights, as far as I am aware there is no legal right that cannot extend by ordinary statute to a single mother to put her on par with a married or widowed mother.

I believe these amendments will bring nothing but damaging and costly uncertainty into multiple areas of law.

Why I’m voting Yes: Carers have a right to be valued and recognised – Tallaght carer Sinead Tighe contibutes a piece on why she is voting Yes on the care amendment in the upcoming referendum.