Sir, – I note your view that it is “important for all citizens to take sufficient time to seriously consider amendments in order to make a fully informed choice on Friday” (“The Irish Times view on the referendums: legitimate arguments from both sides”, March 5th).
But how can voters consider themselves fully informed when no definition of “durable relationships” has been provided by either the Government or Opposition parties who support a Yes vote? We are told that the courts will determine future rights and responsibilities, but not only does this stance fail to address entirely reasonable public concerns about the uncertain practical implications of this key wording, only disputed issues come before the courts, and it is a truism that hard cases make bad law.
By the use of guillotine motions, the enabling legislation for the referendum was, as you observe, fast-tracked through the Oireachtas with the result that “an opportunity for scrutiny was lost”. Parliamentary scrutiny is an essential element of our democracy. It ensures that Government policy is opened up to public awareness and debate, thereby improving the quality of legislation and, critically, upholding support for the legitimacy of politics in the eyes of the public. The lack of such scrutiny has deprived the public of information to assist our choices on Friday.
A further important point is that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal next month as to whether Article 41.2 of the Constitution has any role concerning the State’s obligations when setting the level of the means-tested carer’s allowance. The court’s judges have stated that the appeal raises issues of systemic importance for the carers of severely disabled children and is exceptional enough to warrant a direct appeal to the top court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. Why the apparent rush to a referendum ahead of this case?
Council to run the rule over Portobello house revival as Hugh Wallace deviates from the plan
Patrick Honohan: Ireland surfed the wave of globalisation as long as we could. Here’s what we should do next
Cathy Gannon: ‘I used to ride my pony to school, tie him up and ride him back’
The Guildford Four’s Paddy Armstrong: ‘People thought I was going to be bitter and twisted when I came out of prison’
Whatever anyone might think of our Constitution and its often archaic language in the context of today, amending the Constitution is no small matter. At this point, I am intending to vote No to both proposed amendments in order to oblige the Government to revise the highly unsatisfactory current wording, engage in longer and better public and parliamentary debate, taking on board the result of next month’s Supreme Court Appeal. Only then should the Government – with supporting Opposition parties – come back to the people with the job done properly next time. – Yours, etc,
JANE MAHONY,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Former president Mary McAleese announced recently that she will be voting Yes in both referendums on proposed changes to the Constitution (“Referendums: Yes votes will see ‘new realities’ put into dated parts of Constitution, McAleese says”, News, March 1st). The former president’s reason for voting Yes to the care amendment is in order to “remove from the Constitution language and attitudes which have long been controversial on account of perceived sexism”.
As a former female president of Ireland, should she consider proposing an amendment to Article 12, which exclusively refers to the president as male? – Yours, etc,
FIONNUALA REDMOND,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Like Dr Brian Tobin (Letters, March 5th), I too found myself somewhat perplexed by the letter by the 14 legal academics (Letters, March 2nd).
This was because, in a long letter apparently devoted to clearing up confusion around the implications of including the term “durable relationships” in the Constitution, they didn’t give a definition of the term, or even a number of examples that might have helped us understand the term.
What also struck me reading Dr Tobin’s response is that if legal professionals are disagreeing about this in the letters page of a newspaper, I can only imagine what it will be like when disputes hit the courts. – Yours, etc,
E BOLGER,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – In 1937, Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 of our Constitution shaped attitudes to women, defining our position narrowly and consigning care to the private sphere. It provided the context for women to be disadvantaged, socially and economically, for decades.
Archival evidence shows the extent of robust and energetic campaigns mounted by women and women’s groups in the lead up to 1937; the negative consequences of these Articles were being pointed out even then. The National University Women Graduates’ Association (UCD) wrote to the president and members of the Executive Council that they viewed the articles with “alarm” and had the “strongest misgivings”.
In its 1993 Report to Government, the Second Commission on the Status of Women referred to Article 41.2.2 as “never of any advantage to women” and described it as no longer acceptable or appropriate to a modern democratic state.
These articles were always narrow, unimaginative and patriarchal; they never reflected the reality of women’s lives and they never delivered anything of value. Let’s recognise the vibrant and diverse nature of families, and fully acknowledge the care given so generously by so many within our families and communities.
I am voting Yes and Yes on March 8th, for a fairer and better Ireland, for everyone and for the common good.
Let’s continue to work to deliver the services that support family and care. – Yours, etc,
NUALA RYAN,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 some cohabitating couples have legal rights in relation to their cohabitating partner. Such rights include the right to seek maintenance or apply for financial provision from the estate of their cohabitee. This arises if they have no children but have been cohabitating or living together for at least five years in “an intimate and committed relationship”. If they have a child the applicable period is two years. Now that’s what I call a “durable relationship”. – Yours, etc,
MANUS SWEENEY,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – In your explanation of Minister for Children and Equality Roderic O’Gorman’s view of the referendum campaigns, you refer to whether or not the referendum will be “successful” (“Minister ‘absolutely confident’ rules on State funding have not been breached in referendum campaigns”, News, March 4th).
If it expresses the will of the people, of course it will be successful! That’s what it’s designed to do. Or is the Minister letting his hand show? – Yours, etc,
DAVID WILSON,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.