The Irish government has suffered resounding defeats in two referenda aimed at changing the Irish Constitution to widen the definition of family and to change a provision about women’s role within the family.
Turnout for the referenda, held on Friday, was 44.36 percent, a significant drop from the abortion referendum in 2018 which saw a turnout of 64 percent.
All major parties have supported the proposed constitutional changes, but 67.69 percent voted against the widening of the definition of family, and 73.93 percent rejected the proposal to remove the protection of mothers from the necessity to work.
The Care Amendment
The care amendment proposed the removal of the state’s recognition of a woman’s “life within the home” as a vital support for the common good, as well as a pledge to try to “ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”Instead, the state would recognise and protect “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them.”
Mr. Varadkar has pitched the vote, deliberately being held on International Women’s Day, as a chance to delete some “very old-fashioned, very sexist language about women.”
The Family Amendment
Under the constitution, the state recognises the family “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”It also has an obligation to protect “the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded.”
The government proposed to delete “on which the Family is founded” and insert a description of the family that reads “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships.”
The prime minister has said the amendment was about including families that are not based on marriage such as those led by a grandparent or lone parent.
Opponents criticised the lack of definition on “durable relationships,” saying it would cause issues in courts.
“Everyone knows whether or not they are married. Nobody knows who is or who is not in a ‘durable relationship’ unless a court decides in a disputed case that it is ‘durable.’ Nobody knows how and when a ‘durable relationship’ between two adults ends in the eyes of the law,” he wrote.
Varadkar: Government Respects Results
Speaking at Dublin Castle on Saturday, Mr. Varadkar said the government “clearly ... got it wrong” and was given “two wallops” by the electorate.
The Fine Gael prime minister said the government failed to “convince people of the necessity or need for the referendum at all, let alone detail on the wording,” and that it “accepts the results and will respect it fully.”
He added that the government will continue works “in relation to gender equality, in relation to improving conditions for carers, in relation to giving rights for people with disabilities.”
Fianna Fail Tanaiste Micheal Martin also said “the majority were not persuaded” and the government fully respects the voters’ decision.
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald rejected the claim that her party, which campaigned for a “yes-yes” vote, is out of touch with the Irish public.
“No, we’re very, very much in touch with people, and you’ll recall that I said from the get-go, that we were very much in favour of removing sexist language from the Constitution, very much in favour of an inclusive definition of families,” Ms. McDonald said on Saturday.
She blamed the government on the defeat, saying it “did come up short in terms of the caring wording. They disregarded the Citizens’ Assembly, they didn’t consult with opposition or with other stakeholders. They didn’t collaborate, and they failed to convince.”
Labour leader Ivana Bacik also defended her party’s decision to back a yes-yes vote and blamed the government not convincing the public.
“I do think and it is clear that it is the government’s responsibility, because the government needs to explain to the people first why it chose and proceeded with wording that was so distinctly different from the wording that our Oireachtas [parliament] committee on gender equality has proposed, wording that cross-parties had supported,” she said.
“Why did they not go out more assertively and sell it to the people? Because what we saw from government, particularly in the last few weeks as the no side was gaining ground, we saw a lacklustre campaign from government.”
