‘The role of mothers should continue to be cherished’ – Catholic bishops urge No-No votes in care and family referendums

Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman is leading the charge for a Yes-Yes vote. Photo: Stephen Collins

Sarah Mac Donald

Mon 26 Feb 2024 at 02:30

The country’s Catholic bishops have signalled their opposition to the two proposed amendments to the Constitution in the March 8 referendums.

In their statement, the bishops said the family amendment to Article 41 would diminish the unique importance of the relationship between marriage and family and was likely to lead to a weakening of the incentive for young people to marry.

Marriage, they noted, entailed a public and legal commitment, but the term “durable relationship” was shrouded in legal uncertainty and open to wide interpretation.

“It does not make sense that such an ambiguous reality would be considered ‘antecedent and superior to all positive law’ and acquire the same ‘inalienable and imprescriptible’ rights as those ascribed to the ‘family founded on marriage’,” the bishops said in a statement.

The care amendment to Article 41.2, they warned, would have the effect of abolishing all reference to motherhood in the Constitution and leave unacknowledged the particular and “incalculable societal contribution” that mothers in the home have made and continue to make in Ireland.

“The role of mothers should continue to be cherished in our Constitution,” they said.” What benefit would it be to Irish society to delete the terms ‘woman’ and ‘mother’”, they ask.

Contrary to some recent commentary, the bishops underline that the present constitutional provision “emphatically does not state” that “a woman’s place is in the home”. Neither does it excuse men of their duties to the home and family.

Rather, in contemporary society there now existed a welcome co-responsibility between women and men for every aspect of domestic life, including the provision of care in the home, they said.

The State, they said, had to date failed to financially acknowledge the role of women in the home and there was no indication there would be provision for the adequate financial remuneration of carers.

The bishops said the proposed term “strive to support” appeared to weaken the State’s constitutional responsibility to materially and legislatively support such care.

“Indeed, the proposed new Article 42B does not actually confer any enforceable rights for carers or for those being cared for,” they said.

“We believe that, rather than removing the present acknowledgement of the role of women and the place of the home, it would be preferable and consistent with contemporary social values that the State would recognise the provision of care by women and men alike.”

With 12 days to go to polling day on March 8, campaigners on both sides are stepping up activities.

While the bishops have urged people to consider voting No-No, the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWC) has urged people to vote Yes-Yes, as have groups such as One Family, Treoir, and Family Carers Ireland.

Damien Peelo, CEO of Treoir, which supports parents who are not married, said: “The family referendum is our chance to recognise all families equally, while still protecting marriage.”

"A Yes vote will give constitutional protection to lone-parent families, kinship carers where relatives have stepped in to raise children, unmarried families and cohabiting couples.”

John O’Meara, who recently won a case in the Supreme Court for co-habiting couples with children to be entitled to the widow/widower’s pension, urged citizens to support two Yes votes and highlighted the importance of the referendum for all families.

Orla O’Connor, director of the National Women’s Council (NWC), said: “A Yes vote in the care referendum is our chance to remove sexist language and limits on women from our Constitution.”

She encouraged voters to consider whether they wanted young women and girls growing up in an Ireland “where the Constitution still tells them that their primary place, indeed their ‘life’ is in the home? And that they have ‘duties’ and the boys and men don’t?”

The Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac) has backed the amendment on family but not care. Flac said it was “highly regrettable” voters wouldn’t have the choice to simply delete the so-called ‘women in the home’ provision and instead were being are asked to replace it with a new ‘family care’ provision.

Calling for a No-No vote, conservative group Family Solidarity said: “One particularly concerning possibility is the legal recognition of polygamous relationships under the guise of ‘family’.”

The group noted former attorney general Michael McDowell’s concerns over the lack of clear legal definition of the terminology “durable relationships”.

“This could lead to unforeseen and profound changes in family law, affecting areas such as inheritance, welfare rights, and more,” the group claimed.

On the generic concept of care, the group warns this move to “gender-neutral language, while seemingly progressive, actually erases the specific recognition of mothers and their unparalleled role in nurturing and maintaining the familial structure”.

 

Information about the two referendums

       

Dear Supporter,

As you know, Ireland is holding two referendums on March 8, one on the family and one on carers. The one on the family will further downgrade the relative position of marriage in Irish law and society. The second will remove the words 'mother' and 'woman' (in the context of home) from the Constitution as well as removing the necessity to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home by economic necessity, a move we think is retrograde.

The Iona Institute has produced two memos you may find of some use in seeking to understand the two referendums. You can find the one on the family amendment here and the one on the carers' amendment here. 

Maria Steen gave a talk last month on the two referendums and you can find her talk here. You will also find an audio of the talk here.

Finally, we published the findings of a new opinion poll conducted by Amarach Research and commissioned by the Iona Institute which found that 69pc of mothers would prefer to stay at home than go out to work given the chance. We released the results last week and they have already been quoted in the debate. You can find the results here.

We hope you find these resources of help. 

Regards,

David Quinn

Family and care referendums: Who’s who in the Yes and No camps as both sides prepare for March 8 vote

Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman is leading the charge for a Yes-Yes vote. Photo: Stephen Collins

 Ellen Coyne

Thu 22 Feb 2024 at 02:30

As we head into the final two weeks of the campaign before the family and care referendums on March 8, both sides of the debates are redoubling their efforts. With the Irish public preparing to go to the polls on International ­Women’s Day, who is in the Yes camp and who is in the No?

Yes-Yes

The National Women’s Council of Ireland

The most prominent Yes-Yes campaign group is the National Women’s Council of Ireland. It has called for a Yes vote in both the family and care referendums.

While it concedes that the wording of the new care amendment is not perfect, it argues that it will be an important first step to improve the rights of carers in Ireland. It also believes the existing wording of the “woman’s place” article, which would be replaced by the new care amendment, is misogynistic.

Treoir

The national advocacy service for unmarried parents has a major interest in the family referendum, which would change the constitutional definition of the family as being based on marriage. Treoir argues that this would be a landmark reform for the rights of unmarried parents and families in Ireland. Treoir is also calling for a Yes in the care referendum.

The largest representative body for carers in Ireland said a Yes-Yes would be crucial for recognising the invisible work done by carers in Ireland, and recognising the rights of all kinds of families.

Politicians

Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman is the cabinet member leading the charge for a Yes-Yes. The Green Party, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are all calling for a Yes-Yes. And despite raising concerns about the strength of the wording of the new care amendment in particular, Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit have all rowed in behind a yes.

No-No

The Iona Institute

David Quinn, Maria Steen, Breda O’Brien and Patricia Casey, some of the Iona Institute’s most prominent spokespeople, are all advocating for a No-No vote.

Conservative commentators feel that the care referendum would remove constitutional protection for mothers, many of whom would rather work in the home if they could afford to. Members of the Iona Institute have also raised concerns about what they perceive to be the uncertainty of the family referendum.

Other conservative groups such as Family Solidarity and The Christian Solidarity Party have also said that they are calling for a No vote in both referendums.

Certain politicians

So far, Aontú is the only political party that has come out for a No-No vote. Some individual or independent politicians have also become prominent campaigners for No-No. Independent senators Rónán Mullen and Michael McDowell have both warned against putting the new care and family amendments in the Constitution.

Yes-No or other

Equality Not Care

A new campaign group of disability campaigners, family members of disabled people and feminists who have come out for a progressive No vote in the care referendum. The group has decided not to take a position on the family referendum.

Ireland: Marriage should maintain its exclusivity

On the 8th March, Irish citizens will be voting in referendums to amend parts of its constitution. Two amendments will be on the ballot on International Women’s Day, with one of them possibly altering the definition of marriage and the family.

The first article that will be voted on currently commits to protecting “with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack”. The proposed amendment would change the wording to allow the state to recognise “the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society” (emphasis ours).

The second articles relates to the provision of care by members of the family. It would replace the original recognition that “by her life within the home, a woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. The new version, if it succeeds at the ballot box, would recognize “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” (emphasis ours).

In Ireland, the need for a referendum on extending the definition of family in the constitution was recently questioned in light of a Supreme Court judgement on an unmarried father’s welfare entitlements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of the surviving unmarried father of three children from the widower’s contributory pension (WCP) was unconstitutional. The case raises the question of whether marriage should still have a unique role today, or whether it should be considered equal to other non-marital relationships. Angelo Bottone, Chairman of Family Solidarity Ireland (a member association of FAFCE), spoke to us about this issue and the need to rethink the unique role of the family parented by one man and one woman in marriage in today’s society:

FAFCE: We are following the latest developments in Ireland regarding the O´Meara case and the constitutional amendments with interest. It has been argued that unmarried families are de facto relegated to the second tier by the current wording of the constitution, as “the family” is “based” on marriage. There seem to be efforts to prevent marriage from being presented as something superior to other forms of life. What consequences do these endeavours have for the image of marriage as such?

AB: In all great civilisations marriage has been viewed as a unique institution, forming the bedrock of society. The State has an interest in promoting marriage because it is the best place for children to be born as it offers the stability of a mother and a father united in a publicly committed relationship. Non-married couples who wish to enjoy the same benefits of married ones are free to marry and those, instead, who choose not to marry, should not expect the same benefits without the same commitment. With this referendum proposal, the Government practically denies that there a fundamental difference between those couples.

FAFCE: How does the attitude towards marriage change in a society where non-marital relationships are considered equal and just as desirable as families based on marriage between a man and a woman?

AB: Marriage has no equal. Plenty of research has constantly proved that it offers the best environment to raise a stable family. The benefits of a two-parent married family for children’s emotional, educational, and social development are unique and not replicated in other arrangements.

We know that legislation shapes society, inspires policies, and might even stigmatise dissent. More significantly, legal norms not only follow but also lead changes in culture. The message from this referendum, if it passes, is that non-committed and non-publicly recognised relationships are not significantly different from marriage. As an inevitable consequence, promoting the special status of marriage will be perceived a form of discrimination. Marriage, which is already threatened by other forces, will be further weakened.

FAFCE: The proposed amendment will extend constitutional family status to people in “other durable relationships”. But the decision as to what “durable relationships” means in any case will be left to the courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court. Why should it not be for lawmakers to decide on minimal criteria to qualify a non-marital relationship for treatment as a family – an institution said to have inalienable and imprescriptible rights and duties and to be the fundamental unit group of our society? What could be the concrete consequences of an amendment proposal of this kind?

AB: The expression “durable relationships” is extremely vague. As undefined it would leave important legal interpretations to the judiciary, leading to unpredictability and inconsistency in how family relationships are recognised and treated under the law. While polygamy or polyamory have currently no legal recognition, nobody is prevented from being involved into multiple “durable relationships”. If the referendum passes, one particularly concerning possibility is the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships under the guise of “family.” This could also drastically expand eligibility criteria for family reunification in Irish immigration law, leading to unforeseen and possibly unsustainable social and legal outcomes.

Moreover, in marriage, explicit consent is paramount, necessitating its clear expression before two witnesses and under the supervision of a solemniser. The State also knows exactly when it begins and when it ends. In contrast, the term “durable relationships,” nebulous as it is, lacks any formal stipulation for such explicit consent or established criteria for its verification and its duration. The proposal put forth by the referendum could potentially lead to the acknowledgment of familial status for relationships that may not be founded on mutual consent, provided they possess some appearance of durability. Also, “durable relationships” can be ended abruptly by one of the partners involved at any moment for no reason.

FAFCE: The state is at present free by law to remedy perceived injustices for those in durable relationships who are not married. With declining marriage rates, is it socially beneficial or wise to make non-marriage the easier, equal and increasing norm in the raising of children?

AB: The O’Meara case, which extended the widow’s pension to a non-married partner, proves that there is no need to change the Constitution to grant certain marital benefits to other situations. To what extent this Supreme Court decision was wise is debatable. Nonetheless, we, as Family Solidarity, believe that the current Constitution gives sufficient scope to legislators, or to the courts, to amend what might be considered as injustices, without altering the fundamental role that marriage has in the establishment of a family. A vote in the opposite direction would dilute the unique value of marriage, with detrimental effects on society. The government’s efforts to redefine family structures reflect a misunderstanding of the natural and social importance of marriage, risking the erosion of values that have long been considered central to societal health and stability. As we said in our manifesto, “this is not just a vote for the preservation of our cultural heritage, but a stand for the future stability and integrity of our nation.”

A new report exposes the dubious claims made about daycare

 

If all mothers are out working, which is what the Government seems to want, and most young children are in daycare, shouldn’t we closely examine the benefits of this aim from the point of view of mothers, children and society? The question is particularly relevant in light of the carers’ referendum on March 8th.

Many claims are made by politicians and others about the benefits of putting young children into daycare. A big one is that it creates a more equal society by closing achievement gaps among children from different socio-economic backgrounds. However, a new study by the think tank Civitas challenges this and other claims made about daycare.

The report, called ‘Universal childcare: is it good for children?’, is based on a big review of international research about the supposed benefits of daycare and one conclusion it arrives at is that the evidence does not strongly support the claim that it leads to a more equal society by improving the academic performance of less advantaged children.

While high-quality childcare can benefit older children (above three years) from disadvantaged backgrounds in the short term, it is unclear if these benefits last into adulthood or lead to better job prospects and earnings. There is little research showing a link between daycare and life-long benefits.

Any money spent by the State must be justified. The State is pouring lots of money into subsidising daycare. The burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate the benefits of this. That evidence seems to be much weaker than most people suspect.

To cut a long story short, other influences on a child are far stronger than time spent in daycare, unless the child is from a very poor and dysfunctional family in which case target subsidised daycare at this group rather than providing universal subsidies.

The Civitas report says: “The research consistently finds that family characteristics, parenting and the home learning environment have a more significant influence on children’s development than childcare. These factors are also more important than family income. The quality of care a child receives in the home can be high or low, independent of the family’s socio-economic status. Formal childcare only offers development benefits for children if it replaces lower quality care. If a parent is able and willing to provide high quality care in the home, then long hours in formal childcare may be detrimental rather than beneficial for the child’s development”.

The reports also says that the effect of subsidised daycare on maternal employment is mixed and modest at best. Advocates says it increases employment rates among mothers, but even if this is a desirable outcome (it is only desirable if it is what mothers want), there is little evidence State-subsidised daycare has much effect on maternal employment rates either way.

Subsidised childcare may help mothers who avail of it financially, but it doesn’t necessarily empower all women, as it assumes all women prefer to work rather than care for their children at home. This overlooks the value many women place on raising their children themselves. This is a very relevant point in the context of the carers’ referendum.

The push to make it normal for children to be cared for by someone other than their mothers is based on a few assumptions: that moving childcare from homes won’t hurt children, parents, or society; that it’s more important for a mother to be involved in work than with her children and family; and that having a job is empowering and rewarding for women, while taking care of the home and children is not seen as valuable.

The report notes that “while these beliefs are influential in academic and political circles, evidence suggests that they are not representative of the values and beliefs of the general population.”

A survey commissioned by the Iona Institute a few years ago found that only 17pc of respondents preferred to use day-care for their children under the age of five, while 49pc of respondents preferred to mind their offspring at home and a 27pc preferred a family member to do so.

The report by Civitas concludes that universal childcare has not shown the big benefits claimed by its advocates. The quality of daycare provided is critical, but it is hard to ensure that it surpasses the care provided by a loving family at home.

This being so, why is the Government so determined to have as many mothers as possible in the workplace and to end the Constitution’s commitment to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home due to economic necessity?

 

---

Image by Esi Grünhagen from Pixabay

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

The No Side

The Iona Institute

David Quinn of the Iona Institute, which promotes the place of marriage and religion in society, said they would be recommending a No vote to its supporters in both referendums.

Their position: “We believe there is too much doubt about the meaning of ‘durable relationships’ in the case of the family referendum. With respect to the referendum on carers, we believe the aspiration to protect a mother from being forced out to work due to economic circumstances is still a good one and should be retained. Minister O’Gorman is correct to say a woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be, but the point is that a lot of mothers who would like to be at home with their children cannot do so because of economic pressures on them.”

Aontú

The party does not intend to spend any money, print any posters or leaflets or canvass for the referendums. But a spokesman for party leader Peadar Tóibín said the party has adopted a No position and that Mr Tóibín would be featuring on media debates on the issue.

Their position: “At the meeting of Aontú's Ard Comhairle this week it was broadly accepted that some of the current wording of these parts of our Constitution is archaic. Aontú would have supported a change to the wording of the Constitution, but we cannot support these changes. The Government’s amendments are exceptionally poorly written. The language in these amendments is unclear, confused and offers no material help or rights to families or carers,” Mr Tóibín said.

Family Solidarity

Family Solidarity is a Conservative group which was established following the 1983 referendum to introduce the Eighth Amendment, which banned abortion. The group campaigned for a Yes vote in order to place an equal right to life for the unborn and the mother. The Eighth Amendment was repealed in 2018. The group campaigned against the 1986 referendum to remove the ban on divorce.

Their position: “The two proposals have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the fabric of Irish society. The redefinition of the family risks diluting the time-honoured values that have long been the cornerstone of our communities, and the removal of specific acknowledgments and protections of women’s roles in the home undermines the dignity and value of their contribution,” a spokesman said.

The Irish Women’s Lobby

The Irish Women’s Lobby, a relatively new feminist group, says they are an “alternative voice for the many women denied political and media representation”.

Their position: Spokeswoman Helen Duignan said the group believes that “neither amendment is in anyone’s interests, but particularly not those of mothers and carers, who are predominantly women. Both amendments were rushed through the Houses of the Oireachtas with no pre-legislative scrutiny and were not even in line with the views of the Citizens’ Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that a woman’s place is in the home, as has been claimed by prominent NGOs and many in the media.”

The Countess

The Countess describes itself as a “grassroots campaigning organisation that advocates for women, children and LGB young people”. Their spokeswoman, Laoise de Brún, said that the Government and NGOs “are clamouring to convince us that it’s the wording of Article 41.2 that causes the inequality in households. Firstly, this is both incoherent and lazy, like so much policy nowadays, whereby the tricky work of tackling structural inequality is ignored in favour of moving around the deckchairs and, most importantly of all for this Government, virtue signalling. Holding the referendums on International Women’s Day is a masterclass in callow cynicism.”