The Taoiseach has said the referendum on care, if passed, would place an additional and stronger obligation on future governments to support carers.
Leo Varadkar was speaking at the launch of the Fine Gael campaign for a yes vote in the 8 March referendums on care and family.
The referendums, to be held on International Women's Day, would broaden the definition of family beyond marriage in the constitution.
There would also be a new reference to carers to recognise all those who provide care and to remove the reference to women's duties in the home from the Constitution.
Mr Varadkar said that any future government that tried to "roll back" on policies to support carers would be challenged in the courts.
He accepted that the upcoming referendums are more complicated than the choices put forward in the Marriage Equality and Repeal votes, but they will have an impact.
Mr Varadkar said on the family referendum, a yes vote would continue to protect the family and the institution of marriage and recognise that families are based on marriage.
The Constitution, he added, says that families can only be based on marriage and the Government believes this no longer reflects modern society.
"We have families that are based on other durable relationships.
"These include one-parent families, family led by grandparents, guardians or a couple that are cohabiting for a long period of time, a single mother or single father, a sister or brother raring nieces or nephews when their brother or sister passed on.
"These are everyday examples. We estimate about one million people form these families and yet our Constitution says that their families are not real."
He said that many people have durable relationships - such as business relationships - that may be going on for decades.
These families are already recognised in law, in tax and social welfare laws but a yes vote would extend the constitutional shield to more families, the Taoiseach said.
Nobody is going to be able to "rock down to the courts" and say that makes them a family, he added, because other tests will apply.
On the care referendum, which proposes removing the reference to a woman’s life within the home, Mr Varadkar said this would for the first time put an article in the Constitution that recognised family care and placed obligations on the State to support it.
He said the existing wording provides some protection but only for those who give care in the home and are women.
"The new proposed article is much more inclusive, it's about care and also those who are cared for, men and women within the home and without," the Taoiseach said.
"Crucially it places a constitutional obligation on future governments to strive to support and improve conditions for family carers."
"The right thing is to say to all children and families that we value and protect them by voting yes.
"To show that those involved in providing family care that the Constitution protects and values them by voting yes.
"These proposals will enable the Constitution to catch up with contemporary reality and ensure it reflects positive and inclusive ambitions for the future of our country."
However, Independent Senator and disability campaigner Tom Clonan said that excluding care outside of the family is "paternalistic and disempowering".
Explained: What will people vote on in twin referendums?
Watch: Referendums on family and care explained
Independent Senator Rónán Mullen, meanwhile, made the case for a no vote in the referendums.
He described the wording of both proposals as weak and said the Government is determined to come up with the wrong answers to the right questions.
Senator Mullen told RTÉ's Today with Claire Byrne that the process was rushed and avoided scrutiny through the Dáil and Seanad "as though they didn't want us to look closely at the wording of what they are proposing - that should make people very suspicious of what's going on here".
"The concept of durable relationships introduces a whole area of uncertainty into our Constitution that we have never had before," he said.
Senator Mullen said that cohabitation law gives specific but limited rights to couples who are not married, but with this "radical definition of durable relationships ... we don't know who exactly will be able to claim the rights of the family".
He gave an example of three people who are lawfully connected under law in another country seeking recognition within the State, saying that the Government cannot tell us whether or not this might include polygamist relationships down the line, or even short-term relationships as the definition does not say how long a relationship has to have lasted.
Senator Mullen said this meant redefining what a fundamental unit group can be by this vague term of durable relations.
"The last thing people should want in that having disputes going on in the courts.
"It's a pig in a poke, we don't know what we are voting for and it didn't have to be this way."
Senator Mullen said there appeared to be an ideological wing within Government that is allergic to the references to the mother, allergic to the idea of parenting or life in the home, "but doesn't want to come out and declare that".
He added that it is not clear that durable relationship necessarily would refer to a single parent and their children, but other wording would give some respect in those cases.
Senator Mullen asked whether durable relationships were conjugal between adults, and asked how conjugal it has to be.
He said that in a court setting, there could be an example of a hidden relationship, that turns out to be durable when it is under litigation in the court.
"The Government is just kicking the ball up in the air and giving a bland reassurance to people that it’ll be alright as the court will sort it out, but that's not what the Constitution is for."
Minister for Integration Roderic O’Gorman is "making it up as he goes along", he added.
On the referendum on care in the home, Senator Mullen said that the word "strive" was as weak as water.
He added that he was not able to point to a single benefit for people that either of these referendum proposals would make, if passed, as it is "all in the vague area of symbolic language"
