The Irish Times view on the planned referendum on gender equality: a more inclusive Constitution

The Government can never be accused of rushing into the referendum on family, care and gender equality. By the time the electorate delivers its verdict on amendments to articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution next November, five years will have elapsed since the then minister for justice, Charlie Flanagan, first sought a vote on such changes.

But the intervening time has been wisely used. Despite a six-month hiatus due to Covid-19, the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality, chaired by Catherine Day, delivered a 143-page report with 45 recommendations in June 2021. A special Joint Oireachtas Committee established to consider the assembly’s recommendations, chaired by Ivana Bacik, published its report last December, accepting the assembly’s recommendations “as a blueprint for achieving a gender equal Ireland” and focused on how to implement them. Proposals for the wording and any enabling legislation will be published by the end of June.

The most eye-catching of the proposed changes aims to delete the sexist language in article 41, first inserted in Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937. It is contained in the long-disputed line which refers exclusively to women and mothers as having a “life” and “duties” within the home.

Original calls to abolish the article evolved into a more thoughtful debate about replacing it with gender-neutral language, while still acknowledging the care that happens in the home and wider community as fundamental to society’s wellbeing. The committee’s changes would also ensure a long-awaited, more inclusive definition of “family” beyond the family based on marriage.

Family and care referendums: what exactly does the Government want to change, and why?

---

Yes vote in referendums ‘champions rights’ for disabled people, single-parent families, carers, say campaigners

---

Who do you trust to advise you on changes to the Constitution?

---

Who’s who? The Yes and No camps in the March 8th family and care referendums

---

While the proposed amendments might be dismissed as largely symbolic and lacking any practical value, many most directly affected would disagree. Some 50 years after the founding of Cherish – now One Family – a support group for mothers who were unmarried, a single mother and her child are still not recognised as a family in the eyes of the Constitution.

This is no small consideration for those groups who were appallingly treated by the State. Symbols in this context are hugely important. Constitutional recognition matters. Despite the constitutional promise that they “shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”, there were no specific entitlements for women who complied with the Constitution’s and society’s expectations.

New constitutional amendments are untested and therefore unpredictable in how they might be interpreted by the courts. Perhaps the greater benefit will be the conversations, debates and ideas that flow from these proposals over time. A question to begin with: why, after all we have learned, do we consistently undervalue the labour, skill and commitment of caring?