Random Thoughts

[The Butcher]

This is my thoughts pretty much on it, wishy washy and vague. "Strive to support." The 'durable relationships' vote is a big no, the other one, a slight no, I'm not keen on the existing wording but what it's being replaced with seems worse to me.

https://www.thejournal.ie/women-in-the-home-catherine-connolly-6275205-Jan2024/?utm_source=twitter_short

Whatever about the others - Catherine is usually balanced/logical in her critique of legislature.

Good arguments from Connolly on the "women in the home" change. She does add that she is leaning Yes on the definition of the family one though. What is your reason for a big no on that?

What is a durable relationship? Marie Baker, the head of the electoral commission and an Irish judge who has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland since December 2019 ->

https://www.independent.ie/videos/durable-relationships-could-be-defined-by-a-couple-getting-a-christmas-card-says-marie-baker/a765197551.html

Currently no definition and the government haven't been forthcoming with one. If the wording included the likes of 'Civil partnerships, cohabiting partners' then sure - I'm not fond of vague statements being slotted in, at least there's other wording as I've mentioned as examples that they could have opted for that reduces the scope for interpretation about what constitutes a relationship worthy of constitutional protection. Our definition of partnership already included gay couples and those cohabitation without marriage.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Once one has watched that video of Marie Baker, that headline is egregiously misleading as to its implications for the referendum: notably, at that point, it appears she is talking about how precedent case law has already interpreted the notion of durability. Unfortunately the video then cuts short. I think if you want to lean on that as an argument, it would be worth having the full transcript of her answer. Which I may try find later on.

[The Butcher]

The official information booklet says that it is a "committed and continuing relationship other than marriage".

I saw her quoted as "Subjectively, a relationship is durable if it's committed, if it presents itself as committed, if it means to be committed, if it intends to be committed.

"Durability can sometimes be how you're treated by other people. Are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send you postcards [or] Christmas cards to both of you? These are indicators of your commitment to one another.

"I'm satisfied that there's a core meaning of durability and durable, enduring. They are all words from the same group. I'm satisfied there are core meanings."

Fair enough about the transcript etc but the fact postcards are even mentioned as some kind of metric/indicator for durability is farcical to me. I'd be quite happy as I said with civil partnerships/cohabiting partners something along those lines. I don't agree with the current wording either by the way, but I'm not keen on replacing it with something vague - I don't see why we couldn't use the already defined wording above?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As I said, she is at that point talking about how precedent case law has already interpreted durability. Perhaps farcical, but already happened, not something that she is saying is going to happen as a result of a Yes vote. That's what is key and what the headline misleads on.

1:47 - "There have been a few cases in the courts in the last few years, judgements from the supreme courts and some judgements from the high court, which have identified the various indicators as to durability in a relationship, there are all kinds of things..."

Then, as part of that same line of argumentation related to case law in the last few years, she lists some of those indicators which have already been identified and applied in case law by lawyers, incl. whether the couple in question is effectively treated by third parties as a de facto unit.

[The Butcher]

Specific terms like "civil partnerships" or "cohabiting partners" provide clear, unambiguous legal definitions compared to 'durable relationships' - I know which terms reduce the room for interpretation and potential litigation.

This will go around in circles honestly - No one has defined what 'durable relationships' means yet. The government already admitted that the courts will have to define it - I'm not voting yes on something that is not set in stone yet ->

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/01/25/referendums-on-family-and-care-meaning-of-durable-relationship-will-be-interpreted-in-hard-cases/

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As Marie Baker points out, and as is known, the constitution always ends up having to be defined on a case by case basis, in those cases that are "on the margins" (Baker's words). That is a feature of constitutional law, not a flaw. I'm not trying to convince you to vote Yes, your reasoning about bad wording is perfectly legitimate, but does need to be kept in perspective of how the law works. Basically, what you shared Connolly saying about the definition of "woman" is what Baker says already happens about the definition of "durable": the courts have to define it. That makes that aspect specifically at least a little bit of a red herring.

[hellfire]

Specific terms like "civil partnerships" or "cohabiting partners" provide clear, unambiguous legal definitions compared to 'durable relationships' - I know which terms reduce the room for interpretation and potential litigation.

This will go around in circles honestly - No one has defined what 'durable relationships' means yet. The government already admitted that the courts will have to define it - I'm not voting yes on something that is not set in stone yet ->

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/01/25/referendums-on-family-and-care-meaning-of-durable-relationship-will-be-interpreted-in-hard-cases/

It's about time myself and the cat got the recognition we deserve. Our relationship is quite durable.

[astfgyl]

https://merrionstreet.ie/en/news-room/news/government-statement-supreme-court-judgment-on-mccrystal-case.html

So is this not a thing anymore? Looks very much like it isn't.

Can anyone give me a hypothetical case where the proposed changes to the constitution will benefit anyone, or tell me who is marginalised by the current legal situation in this country?

Here's the craic...

The current wording is preventing the government from doing something or else they wouldn't be looking to change it.

Can anyone think of what that is? No.

Will the government tell you what it is? No.

Will they tell you some vague shit about inclusivity that doesn't actually tell you anything? Yes.

Someone please tell me of any group of people who will benefit in any legal sense from this changing of the wording. You can't, I'll bet.

So why in this case would anyone vote Yes other than they've been hoodwinked by the government's insistence that it's a good thing even though they won't tell you why?

Now consider how badly they want you to vote Yes and I bet in your own mind you won't be able to think of a single reason why.

This is an absolute Trojan horse.

[astfgyl]

Hah, nobody believed me but have you checked your status on the voting register?

Bet you can't wait to have your say on the next president

[Bürggermeister]

Voting card just delivered by the postie 

"They" did run a fairly extensive ad campaign several months ago asking people to check they were still registered. I don't even watch TV and I saw the bleeding ads 

[astfgyl]

They had them on social media too. I'm sure all the lads who can't buy gaa tickets for themselves online got straight on there to get themselves sorted out.

[astfgyl]

They had them on social media too. I'm sure all the lads who can't buy gaa tickets for themselves online got straight on there to get themselves sorted out.

Edit: Further to this I was listening to a few auld ones in the charity shop this morning going on about how they didn't get a voting card for the referendum but when they do, they'll be voting no/ no because "even the lads on the radio and telly can't tell us what it means".

Unfortunately, I had to break it to them that they won't be getting a card unless they got themselves sorted on checktheregister.ie, which of course they hadn't. So yeah..... about that extensive ad campaign......

The boys pulled a stroke and it worked.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Presumably, despite their advancing years, they know where the local garda station, civil authority, or citizens advice bureau is? If they think they're not on the register, any of those places will sort them out. I hear these places generally have landlines too.

[astfgyl]

Presumably, despite their advancing years, they know where the local garda station, civil authority, or citizens advice bureau is? If they think they're not on the register, any of those places will sort them out. I hear these places generally have landlines too.

You obviously haven't seen what was done or you wouldn't be talking shite as you are there

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

All I'm saying is that you could have given them auld ones practical advice on how to make sure they have their say in the referendum, rather than scaring them with computer talk.