‘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.

Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll

 

More than two-thirds of mothers (69pc) with children under the age of 18 would prefer to stay at home with their children rather than go out to work if they could afford it, according to a new Amarach Research opinion poll commissioned by The Iona Institute.

In addition, 76pc of mothers said that women who work in the home are undervalued by society compared with women who work outside the home.

Over 70pc of mothers do not feel valued by society for their work as mothers.

The questions in the poll were identical to those used in a widely publicised survey commissioned by Sudocream in 2017, and the findings of this latest survey are extremely similar to the ones in that poll and other polls on the same issue.

Commenting on the survey on behalf of The Iona Institute, Professor Patricia Casey said: “The findings are extremely relevant to the upcoming referendum on carers. Currently, the Constitution acknowledges the importance of mothers, and it says they should not be forced out of the home by economic necessity. We see from this survey and others like it that the vast majority of mothers would prefer to stay at home with their children if they could afford it. This is exactly what the Constitution aims at, even if the State has failed to live up to the promise of the Constitution.”

She continued: “I have been a working mother for most of my adult life. This is what I wanted and Article 41.2 of the Constitution held me back in no way, shape or form. Children’s Minister, Roderic O’Gorman, says ‘a woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be’, and that is exactly correct. The trouble is that the policy of this and past Governments has made it almost impossible for most mothers to stay at home with their children if that is what they want.”

Professor Casey concluded: “If the Government was really on the side of mothers, it would make it easier for them to stay at home with their children if that is their wish, and it is the wish of the vast majority of them, as the Amarach poll tells us. But the Government seems to be on the side of the economy, not mothers. It wants to delete the one reference to mothers from the Constitution, the one reference to the home in the context of mothers, and the one reference to try and protect mothers from being forced out of the home. This is not right.”

The following were the findings of the Amarach survey:

If you had the option (and money was no issue) would you prefer to be a stay-at-home mother?

Yes: 69pc

No: 22pc

Don’t know: 10pc

Which does society value more: women who work inside the home or women who work outside the home?

Women who work in the home: 3pc

Women who work outside the home: 76pc

Both equally: 12pc

Don’t know: 9pc

Do you feel valued for the work you do as a mother by society?

Somewhat or very much so: 29pc

Not really or not at all: 71pc

Don’t know: 1pc

ENDS

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.”

Oireachtas Committee hears why Denmark has rejected euthanasia

 

The Danish parliament has a Council of Ethics that sometimes reports to it on ethical issues. Recently it reported on euthanasia. Surprisingly perhaps – given Denmark’s reputation as a hyper-modern society – the Council recently voted overwhelmingly against recommending euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way, shape or form. Members of the Council of Ethics appeared before the Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying last week to explain their decision.

If euthanasia becomes an option, they said, “there is a great risk that it will become an expectation more than a right”.

The Committee was told: “The only thing that will be able to protect the lives and respect of those who are most vulnerable in society will be a ban without exceptions.”

Dr. Merete Nordentoft (pictured), professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen and a member of the Council, said: “There is a risk that it [euthanasia] will even be experienced as a duty”.

The potential societal impacts of legalising euthanasia were highlighted, including negative changes to perceptions of old age, disability, and quality of life.

“Assisted dying may cause unacceptable changes to basic norms for society and healthcare. The very existence of an offer of assisted dying will decisively change our ideas about old age, the coming of death, living with disability, quality of life and what it means to take others into account”, Prof. Nordentoft remarked.

In its written statement to the Oireachtas Committee, the Council of Ethics stated without ambiguity that only a total ban will protect the lives of the most vulnerable.

“We do not believe that legislation can be developed which will be able to function properly. We are concerned, particularly based on findings of developments in broad regimes of assisted dying, about the ability to adequately monitor and restrict the practice and possible expansions. The only thing that will be able to protect the lives and respect of those who are most vulnerable in society will be a ban without exceptions.”

As an expert in the field of suicide prevention, Prof. Nordentoft told the Committee about the often-changing nature of suicidal ideation and the importance of retaining the option to change one’s mind. Assisted suicide and euthanasia, instead, are irreversible and remove this possibility.

Also, it was noted that many patients undergoing palliative care may reassess their perception of a worthy life, suggesting that their desire for euthanasia may also evolve and reverse over time.

When asked about the apparent support for euthanasia among the Danish population, Prof. Nordentoft replied that this is often based on lack of proper knowledge of the current legal and medical situation. Many people believe that they will be forced to suffer against their will but, in Denmark as in Ireland, doctors are not obliged to provide life-prolonging treatment against a patient’s will, except in cases of psychosis and severe anorexia nervosa. Moreover, the use of medication to alleviate suffering, is allowed in palliative care, even when it may unintentionally shorten life.

The thoughtful recommendations provided by the Danish Council of Ethics should serve as a crucial consideration for legislators, urging them to reflect deeply on the outcomes and pitfalls observed in the Netherlands.

Indeed, the Netherlands is about to make euthanasia available to those between the ages of one and 12. For the time being, it will be only available to children in this age group with a terminal illness. Small babies can already be euthanised and so can anyone over 12. The change means that all age groups can now be killed via euthanasia.  The logic of euthanasia is inexorable. Eventually, it covers everyone.