Ireland holds referendum on family and gender equality
Two votes were held on Friday to change references in Ireland's constitution to the family and women
On Friday (March 8) Ireland willvote on constitutional amendments regarding family definitions and the role of women in the home, following campaigns that focused on ambiguous wording, mansplaining, and concerns over polygamy.
The proposed changes, named the family amendment and the care amendment, aim to modify Article 41 of the 1937 constitution of the EU member state.
The family amendment urges citizens to broaden the family definition beyond marriage, encompassing durable relationships like cohabiting couples and their children.
The care amendment suggests replacing outdated language concerning women in the home with a clause acknowledging care provided by family members to each other.
Orla O'Connor, the head of the National Women's Council of Ireland, sees the referendum, coinciding with International Women's Day, as a step toward greater equality in Ireland, emphasising the importance of equality for families and women, as well as recognising the value of care within the context of family.
Catherine Cox from Family Carers Ireland deems the 1937 references archaic and outdated, supporting a double Yes.
Political scientist Yvonne Galligan sees the family amendment as a logical progression after previous referenda that ended constitutional restrictions on same-sex marriage (2015) and abortion (2018), diminishing the influence of the once-powerful Catholic Church.
In the balance
Despite initial support for a Yes-Yes vote from major political parties, polls have shown increasing concerns about the vagueness of the proposed changes.
Prime Minister Leo Varadkar acknowledges the uncertainty, particularly regarding the definition of a durable relationship. Critics, like David Quinn of the Iona Institute, argue that confusion may lead to No votes, and removing terms like women and mothers from the constitution could also influence the outcome.
Critics from both sides express reservations about the care amendment. Disability rights activist Maryam Madani believes it falls short by not adequately addressing care beyond family contexts.
Meanwhile, conservative and far-right voices raise concerns about potential implications for polygamous relationships and increased immigration through migrant family reunions, claims denied by the government.
Not well-thought out
Yvonne Galligan suggests that the care amendment is more complex and may be more likely to receive a "No" vote. Some citizens express doubts about the well-thought-out nature of the questions, with opinions on whether responsibility for care should lie with families or the state.
The uncertainty leaves some voters, like Maria Garvey and Aidan Connolly, contemplating their choices, with Garvey questioning the emphasis on family responsibility for care and Connolly leaning towards a "Yes-Yes" vote without strong conviction.
(With inputs from agencies)