Referendums: Constitution matters so exercise your vote

THE 39th amendment deals with Article 41.1.1 and Article 41.3.1 which both concern the concept of family.

The Constitution currently recognises the centrality of the family unit in society and protects the family founded on marriage.

The proposal involves the insertion of additional text to Article 41.1.1 and the deletion of text in Article 41.3.1.

If the 39th amendment to the Constitution es, the constitutional protection of the family would be given to both the family based on marriage and the family founded on “other durable relationships”.

The second referendum on March 8 relates to the care amendment.

The 40th amendment proposes to delete Article 41.2.1 and Article 41.2.2 which say that: “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a without which the common good cannot be achieved.” 

And: “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 40th amendment, if ed, would see the insertion of a new Article 42B: “The State recognises that the provision of care, by of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to such provision.” 

Fianna Fáil leader Tánaiste Micheál Martin said that his party is strongly ing a yes vote on both proposals.

“We believe that the amendments would mark an important statement of inclusion in modern Ireland and represent an important recognition of a process of change which has been ongoing for up to 60 years,” he said.

The proposed wording in relation to the role of caring in society is, he asserted, “a statement of values and an important guide for action”.

“It reflects that all of us have a responsibility to recognise the vital role which caring for others plays in a strong society.

“And caring is important in many different situations.

“To focus just on raising children is to have a very narrow view of caring in our society. We all care for older people, for people with disabilities and for those with serious illnesses.

“The amendment both shows the respect and value which we as a society have for caring, and it also recognises that the State has a role to play in ing care,” he said.

On the family amendment, Mr Martin said he believes the proposed new wording is more inclusive and reflective of a modern Ireland.

“Marriage is a wonderful institution which provides great , but it is not and should not be the sole means of defining what is and is not a family.

“The amendment will capture the wide range of families in Ireland today that are not based on marriage but are strong committed caring relationships, such as couples with or without children, single parents and their children and grandparents raising their grandchildren,” he said.

Indeed, across a range of different councillors on Cork City Council, the sentiment was ive of a yes, yes vote.

“It’s just changing it from marriage to marriage or on other durable relationships and that’s just reflecting 21st century Ireland,” Fine Gael councillor Shane O’Callaghan said of the family amendment.

Mr O’Callaghan also said that he would be voting yes for the care amendment.

“I think that is just a way of removing language in a constitution that seems to heavily imply that a woman’s place is in the home, that a woman’s first duty is in the home and I think again that’s not reflective of modern society and I think that the language by modern standards is actually quite misogynistic,” he said.

On the current wording in Article 41.2.2 relating to a woman’s “neglect” of “duties” in the home, Green Party councillor Colette Finn said she finds such phrasing “gratuitously offensive”.

“It has socialised men to see women as there to service their needs.

“I have met women on my canvassing whose husbands took full advantage of this understanding of a woman’s place in the home.

“A loving home is so important for all who live there and that care should be fully ed and recognised.” Ms Finn said she also agrees with recognising that not all families are based on marriage.

“I, for example, am one of those villainous unmarried mothers.

“Thankfully, the concept of illegitimacy has been abolished.

“There is also a greater recognition that the parent who remains as the primary carer should be ed and not criticised,” she said.

Similarly, Labour Party councillor John Maher described the proposed amendments as an “opportunity to modernise our Constitution”.

“We must recognise that there are many types of family units in Ireland in 2024 and these must be recognised in our Constitution,” he said of the family amendment.

“I look at my own sister who plays a mam and dad role to my nephew and ed by our parents, my brother, myself and many others — not the traditional family but it works and ensures the best for my sister and nephew.” Mr Maher said he would also be ing the care amendment, but expressed frustrating over the exact wording.

“Article 41.2.2 which recognised a particular role for women reflects outdated perspective and perpetuated gender stereotypes and we are asking voters to vote yes to its removal and to insertion of Article 42B.

“It is no secret we have been very frustrated at the wording delivered by government.

“It is our view that this is a missed opportunity to make a comprehensive commitment on care,” he said.

“Crucially the proposed amendment states that the State will strive to the provision of care within the family, and we in Labour, will use this to fight for better s for those who provide and receive care in the home.”

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin councillor Orla O’Leary said that while Sinn Féin is calling for a yes vote in both referendums, the party also believes the wording could have been stronger.

“Equality and fairness must be hardwired.

“That being said, we believe the Government missed a big opportunity with the wording, it lacks the ambition to deliver the scale and depth of change required by carers in particular.

“The Government should have used the wording proposed by Citizen’s Assembly.

“However, we are calling for a yes vote because these referendums are small steps in the right direction. Some change is better than none,” she said.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality had recommended replacing the wording with language that was not gender-specific, and “obliges the State to take reasonable measures to care within the home and wider community”.

Meanwhile, Socialist Party councillor Brian McCarthy also expressed a preference for the wording the Citizen’s Assembly had proposed.

“While we’re calling for a yes vote in both, unfortunately, it’s without enthusiasm.

“There was a real opportunity here for the State to recognise care work and for gender equality to be enshrined in the Constitution and this is what was actually recommended by the Citizen’s Assembly, but the Government proposals have fallen far short of that.

“It’s positive that they propose to remove gendered care roles and to recognise lone parents but at the same time it confers no new rights, doesn’t obligate state for carers, it doesn’t address the fact that women in Ireland perform on average 38.2 hours of unpaid care per week or the 10% difference in pay between men and women,” he said.

“The real danger is that these proposals are so weak that we’ll see little to no enthusiasm or progressive campaigning leaving the door open to the far right to campaign strongly for a no vote.

“They’re masquerading as pro-women but the suggestion that the outdated language in the Constitution as it stands somehow protects women is ludicrous and the reality is that working class women have always been forced to work outside the home by financial necessity.

“Overall, we feel it’s really important for people to come out and vote yes to both on March 8 as they do represent a step forward but we feel that the Government should have gone much further.”