Two referendum votes will be held on 8 March, International Women's Day, in which voters will be asked whether they want to amend the wording of the Constitution.
In one, people will be asked to vote on changing the constitutional definition of the family.
The Family Amendment
Currently, the Constitution affirms that "The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society."
It also says, "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
The proposed amendment would see the first line changed to read "the State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society."
In the second line, the amendment would also see the words "on which the Family is founded" removed.
The Care Amendment
In the second referendum, people will be asked whether they wish to delete two lines in the Constitution, and add a new one.
The Constitution currently affirms "the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."
And that "The State shall... endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."
The amendment proposes to delete both those lines. If supported, a new piece of text would be added saying "The State recognises that 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, and shall strive to support such provision."
As part of The Conversation from RTÉ's Upfront with Katie Hannon, we asked two people to join our WhatsApp group to discuss why they believe people should vote for or against the proposed changes.
Karen Kiernan is chief executive of One Family, Ireland's organisation for one-parent families. She says all families should have the same rights and benefits, regardless of their marital status.
Senator Rónán Mullen believes these changes are a step in the wrong direction.
Senator Rónán Mullen
I'm a 'No' voter to both these proposals for a variety of reasons. I'd start with the issue of process. The Government departed radically from the proposals of the Citizens Assembly, whatever one thinks of those proposals. Then, remarkably, they dispensed with pre-legislative scrutiny. Then they drove the referendum legislation through the Oireachtas in double-quick time, and 'guillotined' the debate, the amendments and the vote.
This is pretty much a 'slap in the face' to the electorate who are entitled to have a properly considered wording put to them for something as important as constitutional change.
It's obvious that the Government wants minimum scrutiny of the proposals. And already the evidence is in and what their approach has led to. Confusion and uncertainty about what it all means.
It's a 'pig in a poke' proposal.
Karen Kiernan
Thanks, Rónán. One Family and many other civil society organisations that work with and represent children, families, carers and women, have been looking for these amendments for decades.
One of the founders of Cherish/One Family, Mary Kerrigan, had her son in 1972 in Clare, going on to volunteer and help hundreds of families over the next 15 years. [She] broke down at the launch of One Family's referendum campaign a few weeks ago as it means so much to her to have her family finally be recognised in our Constitution and to be a 'real' family.
This was a woman who resisted efforts to have her child taken from her or to be incarcerated at a time in Ireland when this was common.
This 'Yes-Yes' vote is for her and the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who have lived and still live in unmarried families. They need to be finally brought in from the cold.
Senator Rónán Mullen
I don't think anyone would argue showing respect to one-parent and non-marital families, but the funny thing is, our Constitution has managed to show that respect all along even while promoting a linkage between marriage and family life, which is important.
The decision in the O'Meara case only last week shows that spirit of inclusivity and pragmatism, and specifically an emphasis on the welfare of children, that is already there.
[Editor's note: Earlier this year, John O'Meara from Tipperary won a landmark Supreme Court case entitling him to a widower's pension following the death of his long-term partner, Michelle Batey, in 2021.
Mr O'Meara had been refused the payment because the couple were not married and were not in a formal civil partnership. He challenged the decision but the High Court rejected his case.
On 23 January, the seven judges of the Supreme Court unanimously found that Mr O'Meara and his three children should not be excluded from the pension scheme.]
A wording could have been found to acknowledge non-marital families if it were felt that was needed for symbolic reasons. I tabled such a wording myself last week.
But the Government is on a completely different ideological track with the wording it has forced through. By completely decoupling family from marriage, it is saying that marriage doesn't matter. I don't believe most Irish people think that.
There are stacks of research to show that marriage is linked to all sorts of positive outcomes for children and society. So, the Government is abandoning evidence-based policy because of ideological reasons of its own.
We don't know what 'durable relationships' is going to mean when it is tested in the courts? Polygamous relationships? Parallel relationships involving the same adults with more than one family at the same time, and plenty of litigation about property, tax, succession, family law issues. Gravy for lawyers, chaos for children.
And all because they wouldn't tease out what exactly was needed.
Karen Kiernan
It is so important to the actual people impacted by [the current wording of the constitution] that it is changed so that all children can be recognised as equal in Ireland whether their parents are married or not, and that their families can have the same rights and benefits regardless of their civil status.
We know that with this referendum marriage stays protected, and this reflects Ireland's commitment to marriage in recent years through the marriage equality referendum.
People should not be forced to marry and obviously many parents do not wish to as over 40% of children are currently born into non-marital families.
It has been made very clear in the Dáil and by highly qualified Constitutional lawyers that the Family referendum will apply to children and parents in non-marital families, and to long-term committed unmarried couples.
The Irish people know what they are voting for and a Yes-Yes vote is a strong message to Government to strengthen supports to children, parents, families, carers and disabled people.
Senator Rónán Mullen
I think it is wishful thinking to say that the redefining of Family being done by the phrase 'durable relationships' only refers to one-parent families, long-term cohabitants, but not short-term relationships, polygamous relationships etc. I don't have your crystal ball.
When the Minister can't define 'durable' and courts have suggested that durable doesn't necessarily mean duration, a 'buyer beware' approach is justified.
What's really going on? Well, the Government has taken the word 'mother' out of the Constitution. This smacks of the 'gender wars' to me. And they are proposing to remove State recognition for homemaking. So much for inclusion!
As the law stands, a stay-at-home parent can't be treated less equally than one in the workforce. That may now change, as home-based work will have no constitutional legitimacy. In future marriage breakdown cases, will the making of financial obligations for dependent homemaker spouses be undermined?
If their problem with honouring the work mothers do in the home was that it was 'sexist', why didn't they just refer to 'mothers and fathers' and the value of the work they do in the home? But the Government has a different agenda than fairness.
Karen Kiernan
Most of us in Ireland believe that a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be, and a Yes-Yes Vote is a long-awaited opportunity to remove sexist language from our Constitution as it currently says, that only women have "duties" in the home. This is demeaning to men as well as women who also undertake caring duties in their families and homes.
Voting Yes-Yes sends a strong message about the society we want to have, where men and women alike are encouraged to have strong, caring relationships and are supported by the State to do so.
In One Family we are very clear that [the current wording of the Constitution] did not help lone parents when those on social welfare were forced to be available for work or training in Budget 2012.
The Attorney General advised it did not apply to them as these were not the kind of women or mothers imagined in the Constitution. Now is our time to change this.
Senator Rónán Mullen
I think we may have common ground, Karen, if we both agree that men as well as women, fathers as well as mothers, have duties in the home. Can we maybe agree that it is a pity that the Government is proposing to get rid of the notion of respect for parents and their duties in the home?
At a time when so many parents struggle to meet the demands of the workplace while having quality time and resources to parent, isn't it a pity that the Government isn't acknowledging the need for State to support home-based parenting? But the market is king!
What have they given us instead? A loosely worded caring aspiration that pleases nobody and guarantees no practical rights to carers outside of the home. And that mean word, 'striving', is put there to ensure that there will be no actual obligation on the State to help carers, just a pious aspiration.
As for the social welfare entitlements of lone-parents and availability for work, I think I have shown that the Constitution poses no obstacle to any legislation to secure people's rights, whether they are married or not, and the O'Meara decision sends that message home very strongly.
I return to the point that we need to look at what is really going on: Getting rid of the words 'mother' and 'woman', at a time when services of the State like the HSE seek to excise the word 'woman', when men are allowed into women's refuges and women are forced to participate against men in women's sports, and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) discourages children from using the word 'mother' - people are entitled to be cautious about what is happening.
Karen Kiernan
We will all give and receive care and support at different stages in our lives, and this referendum recognises care for the first time in our Constitution which is very welcome.
A Yes-Yes Vote also provides voters in Ireland the chance to tell the current and future Governments that we want progressive change for family carers to get pay, pensions and supports; that we want disabled or older people who access supports and care to have professional care supports; and to build towards a broad equality agenda that unites individuals, families and organisations that want to improve Ireland in a progressive and supportive way.
I hope the Senator will join us in civil society in calling for support and services for people in society who need them, because of this referendum passing. We will certainly be striving in our efforts to ensure the State actively works towards greater levels of equality with a strong Yes-Yes vote and turnout.
The 8 March [Vote] is a great opportunity to work towards having our Constitution reflect the reality of the lives of millions of citizens through encompassing language for children and families, as well as the recognition of gender equality in care. Vote 'Yes-Yes.'
Senator Rónán Mullen
It's been a pleasure debating with you, Karen. Unfortunately, I can't agree that the common good will be served by these badly worded, and poorly debated, proposals.
It has to be 'No-No,' I suggest, and back to the drawing-board for the Government.
What we've seen here is the politics of 'bait-and-switch' - the Government presented two ideas that were reasonable: acknowledge non-marital families and acknowledge care. You could get huge majorities for those proposals. But having sold those reasonable ideas, they came back with totally different things.
1. A withdrawal of special regard for marriage. We have the bizarre situation of the Government that reassures us that the State will still pledge to defend the institution of marriage from attack, but they are unable to say why marriage is important, and they are attacking marriage by removing any special recognition for it as a bedrock for family life. Confused thinking? Or clever strategy?
The only protection left for marriage in the Constitution will be that it's harder to get out of it (divorce requirements) which doesn't sound like a policy of incentivisation.
2. The second bait-and-switch was the offer to deal with the acknowledgement of mothers' duties in the home and worries that it was less 'sexist'.
Instead, they have withdrawn special regard for home-based parenting.
The third trick was to replace the welcome idea of supporting caregivers, with a loose aspiration that will count for nothing in law.
Only a double 'No' vote will get us the Constitutional wording we should have, if change is needed.
Karen Kiernan
I am going to leave the final word from me to two people who are directly impacted by the proposed amendments on Family and Care and who are calling for a Yes Yes vote.
Breda Murray is a mother and grandmother and says: "Despite all that my family has been through together over the last 24 years, it is very upsetting that our Constitution does not recognise us all as a family. My and my former husband's relationship with each other and our children is recognised, but not me and my older children. These are the children I gave birth to, have loved, taken care of, worried over and provided for since I was 19 years old. This type of inequality just makes no sense to me or my children in this day and age, Ireland has surely become more modern and progressive."
Family carer Tracy Carroll shares her story: "As a family carer for my daughter and son, I've experienced firsthand the challenges and the lack of support. A 'Yes-Yes' vote means recognising our role and addressing the support we desperately need. It's about giving dignity and strength to those of us in the shadows."
"Caring for both my children is a labour of love, but it's also incredibly demanding. This referendum is a chance for Ireland to stand by families like mine, to ensure we are not left to struggle alone. A 'Yes-Yes' vote is a vote for compassion and understanding of the realities we face every day. It will give us hope for a future where family carers are not just acknowledged but actively supported."
A 'Yes-Yes' Vote will enable us to seek more from Government and is a steppingstone to more equality and supports for those who need them. Join this movement for a progressive Ireland for all by voting 'Yes-Yes' on 8 March and for parents like Breda, Tracy, their children and millions more. Thanks for the debate, Senator.
Senator Rónán Mullen
I strongly support respect for people in their diverse family situations. But I do believe the State is right to see marriage as a bedrock for family life because it is so strongly associated with the common good and the best outcomes for children especially, in terms of happiness levels, educational outcomes, social adjustment.
That's the balance our laws and courts should attempt to strike and really have done so in welfare and taxation matters, especially respect for people's individual freedoms and choices, and the integrity of their relationships. But also regard for evidence-based policy and the near universal recognition that marriage has been important for society.
Why would we throw away this fair and respectful balance?
A 'No-No' vote doesn't disrespect anybody in their personal situation. But it does send a strong message to the Government that they must respect the voter and the taxpayer, and only hold referendums on proposals that are properly discussed and analysed, and to avoid hidden agendas under the guise of kindness and fair play.
Ireland has a sophisticated electorate and I think they are unlikely to accept on the nod a proposal which does not seem to do 'what it says on the tin'.
