Minister for Justice Helen McEntee and Senator Michael McDowell crossed swords in a debate on the upcoming referendums on Virgin Media’s Tonight Show last night.
Calling for a ‘yes’ vote on Friday, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee said that in proposing to amend the Constitution the government is “protecting the family that is based on marriage” while “bringing our constitution in line with the world that we already live in.”
"This does not remove the special protection that families based on marriage have"
Minister for Justice @HMcEntee on Friday's family referendum #TonightVMTV pic.twitter.com/gE6tGWpO4x
— TonightVMTV (@TonightVMTV) March 6, 2024
She continued that it was “already the case” that Irish law “recognizes lone parents, it’s already the case that our laws, recognize perhaps grandparents who, for whatever reason, have had to bring up their grandchildren.”
McEntee said that the law already recognized couples who are cohabitating “whether they have children or not” but that the Constitution does not recognise these cohorts.
By voting ‘yes’ she said that “for the first time ever saying to these families who as I said, are already recognized by law and by all of us every day that the Constitution now recognizes them as a family in the way that it hasn’t before,”.
She said that it was “very clear” that this “does not remove the special protection for families based on marriage,”.
Calling for a ‘no’ vote, Senator Michael McDowell said that he accepted the minister’s comments “about the idea that the Constitution and the courts already protect single parent families,”.
"Saying durable relationships are also families, gives rise to a number of unforeseen circumstances, which will lead to legal chaos…"@SenatorMcDowell on why he will vote no in the Family Referendum.@ClaireBrockTV #TonightVMTV pic.twitter.com/CfBlp9RIdI
— TonightVMTV (@TonightVMTV) March 6, 2024
He said, however, that the “real question” with these referendums was whether “are there any new rights for these people? And the answer is no, there aren’t.“ he said.
McDowell said that the ‘recognition McEntee was referring to is “largely just a piece of political rhetoric.”
He continued that what he was “worried about” was that “ introducing the notion of families based on durable relationships and saying that they are also families gives rise to a number of unforeseen complications, which it will lead to.”
He gave the example of an unmarried couple where the female partner has a child from a previous relationship saying that these were already seen as a family by the law. McDowell argued that if the mother in this hypothetical situation had a child with this new partner if the previous family consisting of her and her first child would cease to exist or if there were now two families, the second of which had two children.
He asked whether the man left and had children with a second woman if now three separate families consisting of a mash of the same people would exist before the law, saying that “the problem is that as between those families, there will be disputes as to rights to property rights to maintenance, and all of these things are going to spill over into a deeply unsatisfactory legal situation,” because of the term “durable relationship”.
McEntee said that situations where families break up and form new attachments were already the case and that the Constitutional amendments would not affect “succession” and “tax” laws saying
“we have laws that already exist, irrespective of the constitution. So to suggest that by changing our Constitution, to recognize these types of families that are already protected by law, that suddenly is going to open up a Pandora’s box. It’s absolutely not the case.” she said.
McEntee argued that when the Supreme Court changes the Constitution “they have to look at what is the common good,”
She continued that what’s intended by the changes here is that “we would recognize families in a way that hasn’t been,” previously.
McDowell said that the government has “consistently said” that the meaning of “durable relationship” is going to be determined by courts and not by the Oireachtas.
He said that he and his colleagues in the Seanad had put forth an amendment to the proposed changes seeking to allow the Oireachtas to define “durable relationships” but that this had been rejected by Minister Roderic O’Gorman.
McEntee argued that there was no need to define the meaning of the word “durable relationship” in the Constitution because the term already exists in case law.
“It’s a relationship where there is commitment, where there is intention for it to be long lasting, where that’s how it’s presented to society, and that hostess is going to say that legislatively, because it’s already in case law. So you don’t have to reflect that in the Constitution.” she said.
Senator McDowell rejected this assertion saying, “Unfortunately, that’s not really the case.”
He continued that Minister Roderic O’ Gorman said “that durable does not mean the same as it means in decided case law at the moment.” and that O’Gorman had said that there’s “a separate meaning, a constitutional meaning.”
He continued that “most people know” whether they are “married or not” and that this would not be the case in regards to whether people clearly understood whether they were in a “durable relationship” or not as it lacks any clear legal definition.
McDoweel said that “the only way that my marriage can be dissolved is by a divorce, and I can’t get a divorce unless I get a court order which cannot be made unless I have looked after the spouse and children that I’m leaving behind me.”
He said that this “new arrangement” would mean that a partner could simply leave their family without making proper arrangements as to the welfare of the remaining partner who is in custody of any children that resulted from the relationship.
Minister McEntee replied that there would “always be different cases, there will always be different scenarios.” and that this was “already the case now, and we have very clear succession laws, people can leave wills or not, and there are already ways to decide that, whether it’s through the courts or not,” she said.
McEntee continued, “We are updating our constitution to make sure that it’s in line with the way we live our lives.”
“I know couples who are not married for whatever reason they’ve decided not to. Some of them have children, some of them don’t. I see them as a family in the eyes of the law. They are a family, but in our Constitution, they are not.”
She continued, “I do not want us to wake up the morning after the referendum, knowing that we had a chance to recognize these families in our Constitution, and we decided not to”.
"This is not going to change the laws we have now, there are not going to be suddenly an influx of people"
Minister for Justice @HMcEntee tells @ClaireBrockTV that the family referendum won't impact immigration laws #TonightVMTV pic.twitter.com/mBDys0V3MG
— TonightVMTV (@TonightVMTV) March 6, 2024
She agreed that Minister Neale Richmond was “wrong” when he said that a ‘yes vote” would have huge implications for immigration laws particularly in relation to family reunification saying, “this is not going to change the laws we have now and there’s not going to be a sudden influx of people,”.
"This shows the confusion that there will be in immigration law"@SenatorMcDowell disagrees with @HMcEntee that the family referendum won't impact immigration laws#TonightVMTV pic.twitter.com/nxQrHdEz8l
— TonightVMTV (@TonightVMTV) March 6, 2024
In response McDowell cited the case of a Croatian who had married a Brazilian woman in Belfast who was given a five year work permit in Ireland on foot of the marriage.
He said that their relationship had ended after a year, “They split up after one year, and he met a Colombian girl.” he said.
McDowell explained that the Colombian woman whose student visa was running out had claimed that she was in a durable relationship with the man despite his marriage to the Brazilian woman.
He said that after being refused status on that basis from the Ministry for Justice “the case was referred in 2022, to the European Court of Justice,” and that this “shows the confusion that there will be in immigration law.”
He said that the “great majority” of Irish people “are confused about the meaning of this term, because the government chose, as you said at the beginning of this, not to define it by law, because you might leave somebody out,”.
McDowell said that in terms of legal clarity “we are going down the road towards chaos.”
"We'll be waking up on Sunday morning, on Mother's Day, if these two referenda go through, having taken 'mother' out of the Constitution…"@SenatorMcDowell on what he sees the impact of a 'Yes' vote as being.@clairebrockTV #TonightVMTV pic.twitter.com/OdS3c4tpfQ
— TonightVMTV (@TonightVMTV) March 6, 2024