With just a handful of days left until the referendums on Friday, a slew of new voices – including another former Minister for Justice, Fine Gael TD, Alan Shatter – have called for a No vote to the government’s proposals.
Deputy Shatter, in an letter to the Irish Times today, said that the proposed amendments were “fundamentally flawed” and described them as “simply legally flawed political virtue signalling”.
His opposition comes as a Ireland Thinks poll published at the weekend shows a significant shift to a Don’t Know position for voters.
He is the second former Minister for Justice to oppose the referendums, with Senator Michael McDowell, who is also a former Attorney General describing the proposals as “a mistake in the making” which would “to bring chaos to family law, tax law and immigration law”.
“Having advocated for reform of Articles 41 and 42 in various editions of my book on Irish family law over many years, it is disappointing that these fundamentally flawed amendments are the subject of a referendum,” Deputy Shatter wrote.
He said that if the amendment to the family section were adopted then the State will recognise “the Family whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society” while pledging “to guard with special care the institution of marriage and to protect it against attack”.
This legally complex formulation not only begs the question as to what relationships outside marriage will be constitutionally recognised as “durable” but also as to what circumstances will constitute an attack on marriage as an institution compelling action by the State?
Should what the State regards as recognised non-marital ” durable relationships” exceed marital relationships what action, if any, will the State be required or enabled to take to curtail the number of such relationships or is it constitutionally disempowered from so acting?
Whereas “marriage” envisages a relationship that at some stage is more than mere friendship, involves intimacy and a likelihood of cohabitation, to constitute a “durable relationship” need any of those factors ever exist?
Nor is it clear whether to be a “unit group of society” recognised by an amended Article 41 is cohabitation necessary as many circumstances currently exist which result in a married couple not cohabiting being regarded as a “unit group” under Article 41 and they are not confined to broken marriages.
Can close friends of long or short duration who have never cohabited nor been intimate, and do not envisage ever doing or being so, or simply cousins or neighbours or business partners or carers for an extended period residing with a physically or intellectually disabled person, be regarded as having a “durable relationship” or as being “a unit group of society” and what are the legal implications for the State, the Houses of the Oireachtas and society of all of this?
To date there are no clear or definitive answers to any of these questions.
Well-known disability campaigner Dr Orla Tinsey has also called for a No vote on the ‘care’ referendum, saying that a Yes vote would be the “ultimate reckless act of endangerment”.
Disability campaigners have criticised the proposal to delete the reference to the value of women’s work at home and replace it with what they see as a weaker obligation on the state to support the right of people with disabilities to independent living.
The Equality Not Care group said previously that the amendment would perpetuate the notion that people with a disability were a burden on their families and that the new wording would deny them the right to state support so that they could live independent lives.
Senator Tom Clonan, a disability campaigner, has described the amendment as a “Thatcherite ‘No Society’ declaration” which would say that care for people with disabilities was the responsibility of the family – adding: “AKA ‘You’re on Your Own”.
Dr Tinsley, in common with some other disability campaigners is calling for a YESNO vote on March 8th.
Adding to the new voices calling for a NONO at the weekend was pro-boxer Shauna O’Keefe who dazzled with a win in her first professional fight last December. She issued a call to reject both referendums and said that the proposal to remove Article 41.2 would remove the words woman and mother from the Constitution.
She said that; “as a woman, a woman in business and a Irish woman pro boxer, the proposed changes to the constitution around the removal of the words “woman,” “mother” and “home.” is worrying”.
“There is no clear definitions on the new words being proposed and what the implications are for the future. It is very important to do your research & be fully informed,” she said in a TikTok video.
@shauna_okeeffe_boxer Ireland’s upcoming referendum on March 8th regarding Article 41.2 of the constitution! 🇮🇪 As a woman, a woman in business and a Irish woman pro boxer, the proposed changes to the constitution around the removal of the words “woman,” “mother”and “home.” is worrying. There is no clear definitions on the new words being proposed and what the implications are for the future. It is very important to do your research & be fully informed If in ANY doubt or you don’t fully understand vote NO on 8th March 🙏
However, high profile figures calling for a YesYes in recent days include former President Mary McAleese who said she was “persuaded now strongly that it will reflect the overwhelming impulse for equality and inclusivity that is the hallmark of modern Ireland”.
Thrilled to have former President Mary McAleese announce her support for the family and care referendums this snowy morning! #VoteYesYes #sneachta pic.twitter.com/4PG1E3IpHv
— Womenscouncilireland (@NWCI) March 1, 2024