Sir, – Ivana Bacik is correct to note that the Oireachtas committee of which she was chair had produced a wording related to Article 41 (Letters, September 7th). However, in my letter of September 6th, I was highlighting that across 1,600 words of two articles no wording was offered for consideration (“Head-to-head: Should ‘women in the home’ referendum be delayed? Ivana Bacik and Eilis Barry share their views”, Opinion & Analysis, September 5th).
That wording, as it’s the only one we have, is worth considering in detail. It mentions “care” but doesn’t define it. Is it solely physical acts of care that are covered? It mandates State support for “care”, which if it’s a form of work activity is the only type of work that the Constitution will require the State to support.
Farming, which provides the very food that we eat, or the Defence Forces that protect the Constitution and the integrity of the nation, are not afforded such protection. What would this support entail: a basic income scheme for all carers, whether they’re full time or part time? Working at home for their loved ones or outside the home in any caring role? Assessed by whom?
It also pledges the State to guard with special care the family. Yet there’s no definition of family. Is it solely parents, partners and children or does it include siblings into adulthood?
Ireland meteor shower tonight: Getting the best view of the ‘shooting stars’ during the Geminids
Stephen Collins: Despite the rhetoric from Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin was the big election loser
Radio Review: At Newstalk, Ciara Kelly gets righteously annoyed
I need to book a restaurant for Christmas dinner with friends. Am I too late?
When do you cease to be a member of a family?
Does it extend to cousins? Are all the Sullivans in the country or indeed the world, a form of family to be protected by the Irish State?
Indeed, this change to section 41.3 – removing any interest the State has in guarding marriage as an institution – is potentially quite far reaching in its implications. At a time when marriage is available to all adults, it’s a curiosity to see the State committing itself to protections for couples who prefer, as they’re free to do, not to commit to one another. It is undermining the status of marriage in the Constitution.
These are but the beginnings of the likely areas of contention in any public debate on this topic. They’re not necessarily likely to end in the conclusions Ms Bacik would like to see.
Once again, if the current wording is the problem, let’s just delete it and move on. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL K SULLIVAN,
Marino,
Dublin 3.