In Ireland, politicians present arguments for and against upcoming constitutional referendums on definition of family and recognition of care

On 8 March, in under two weeks, the public is being asked to have their say in two separate referendum votes. One — called The Care Amendment — proposes the removal of references to the role of women in the home from the Constitution. Those references would then be replaced with a broader recognition of the care provided by all family members. The other referendum question — The Family Amendment — focuses on the definition of a family, broadening it out from simply being based on marriage. Heather Humphreys, Minister for Social Protection and Minister for Rural and Community Development and Cavan- Monaghan TD: [...] "This referendum is about taking account of the fact that society has changed and the definition of a family needs to be updated. It’s about supporting the families that all of us know — and who we all see and recognise as families – but currently our constitution does not. [...] On the 8 March, we are also asking people to remove archaic language from our constitution which refers to ‘women in the home’ and ‘mothers neglecting their duties in the home’ [...] The care amendment will put a new article in the Constitution to reflect the modern world where care is provided by women and men." [...] Aontú Cavan Councillor, Sarah O’Reilly: "The ‘Care Amendment’ will not bring any meaningful obligation on the State to support parents, children, older people or people with disabilities. This amendment insulates the government from its responsibility to provide care. It locates care purely in the family and between family members. By insulating the government from their responsibilities, the ‘care amendment’ will result in care being delivered, in the main, by women. By refusing to provide state support to carers and those who need care, the government’s amendment is sexist. [...] The authors of this amendment don’t seem to agree on what a durable relationship means. It’s not certain that families headed by a single parent will be included in this definition. [...] The truth is, it will be left to a judge to decide. But this is the reverse of democracy. People should decide the law clearly. The judge should apply that law to specific cases. The Constitution is critical to the rights of citizens. It’s not the location for a definition free amendment with huge consequences.
Read the full article here: The Journal