Irish voters reject bid to rewrite constitution's view of women and family

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

DUBLIN — Ireland’s effort to remove old-fashioned family values from its constitution suffered a double defeat Saturday as voters rejected the amendments on offer as maddeningly vague and threatening to property rights.

The leaders of Ireland’s three-party government conceded defeat as early returns from Friday’s referendums confirmed that an overwhelming majority of voters had said “no” to its proposed replacements for constitutional clauses on marriage and family care.

In final results announced Saturday night, the amendment to change the constitutional definition of family was rejected by 67.7 percent of voters. The proposed changes on family care took an even harsher drubbing, with 73.9 percent against — the greatest defeat of an amendment in Irish constitutional history.

The outcome means that the 1937 constitution, the legal bedrock for the Irish state, will continue to declare marriage a requirement for any family, while women’s value to society comes from delivering “duties in the home.”

Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/irish-voters-reject-bid-to-rewrite-constitutions-view-women-family/

---

[electric_blue68]

1. Blargh! Nasty, life-choices restricting patriarchy! (not that we don't have our problems here, but geeebz!)

[Igel]

3. That's how democracy works.

Put it to the people.

Feel free to object to their opinion, but acknowledging that that is democracy is a bad thing.

"We should impose what's rights" is utterly anti-democratic and utterly authoritarian. Then it's a question of what variety of authoritarian.

I don't agree with the results. But, ya know, that's how democracy works. Love it or send it to "heil".

[electric_blue68]

4. did I say anything about forcing them to accept a constitutional change? Why would you comment like this?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

13. Same philosophy that lead to the civil war.

You may not like slavery but hey it’s what the people want!

[Elessar Zappa]

16. Yeah, bullshit.

Human rights shouldn’t be up to a vote.

[canetoad]

2. I don't see this as a bad sign

The wording of the proposed amendments is definitely vague and unsatisfactory. It looks like the Irish people want better language and I don't blame them.

[Farmer-Rick]

14. Thank you

I read the article and it clearly indicates that even those who crafted the amendment were unhappy with the definitions and wording.

I think the people did the right thing by rejecting the language. It's a first draft that needs more work.

"Prominent rights activists for the disabled and special-needs children campaigned against the government blueprint because it left the family responsible for care, while the state would “strive” to support them — viewed by many as a cheapskate cop-out."

They need to fix the patriarchal language but not on the backs of disabled and special needs children. I think it was a very nuanced vote.

[ShazzieB]

15. Yes, the article makes it very clear that the amendment's wording was very problematic.

I'm pretty sure I would have voted "no" to this mess myself. Fixing the patriarchal wording of the Irish constitution is a worthy goal, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't create a whole bunch of new problems.

"Either do it right or don't do it at all" is what it boils down to.

[electric_blue68]

17. Oh. I admit I didn't read the article so you make a valid, and

alarming point for already challenged people.

(I should go read it, then)

[Scrivener7]

5. There's a fascinating new book out: "Gender, Constitutions and Equality"

by Priscilla Lambert.

It argues persuasively that when women's rights in a country's constitution are described in terms of their maternal or familial responsibilities, the effect on the rights that result are worse than if women's rights were not separately described at all.

It uses Ireland as an example where the wording of the constitution has actually resulted in fewer rights for women.

[BlueSky3]

7. Thanks for the

recommendation. Sounds like something I need to read. The Irish people knew what they were doing in rejecting this new wording.

[Scrivener7]

8. Their current wording is the version

that results in fewer rights. It sounds like the proposed changes were rejected because they're vague, which is reasonable, but changes to make the current language stop describing women's rights in terms of their maternal or familial responsibilities would result in increased rights.

[BlueSky3]

11. Hopefully this

rejection will send them back to the drawing board to produce something more concise that helps women.

[Scrivener7]

12. My Irish immigrant relative, a trumper, is totally against changing it at all.

I don't think she gets it.

[Seeking Serenity]

18. Maybe she does and just has a differing opinion?

Is that still allowed?

[Scrivener7]

19. Maybe this is someone I know well and I'm

stating MY opinion. Is that still allowed?

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Interesting. ❤️

[Demovictory9]

6. Prominent rights activists for the disabled and special-needs children campaigned against the government blueprint becau

Prominent rights activists for the disabled and special-needs children campaigned against the government blueprint because it left the family responsible for care, while the state would “strive” to support them — viewed by many as a cheapskate cop-out.

[lonely bird]

9. Threatening to property rights

That sounds familiar.

Of course, there is no such thing. There is the legal ability to own property. That is not the same. So, it seems wealth wants to protect wealth. How unsurprising.