DUBLIN (AP) – Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said Saturday that two constitutional amendments he supported that would expand the definition of family and remove language about women's role in the household failed in an early vote tally. As he headed towards the end, he admitted defeat.
Mr Varadkar, who pushed for a vote to enshrine gender equality in the constitution by removing “very outdated language” and seeking to recognize the realities of modern family life, said the amendment was “completely supported by an impressive turnout”. It is clear that the proposal was rejected.
Mr Varadkar said: “It is our responsibility to persuade the majority of the public to vote 'yes' and clearly we were not able to do that.”
Opponents argued that the language of the changes was not well thought out, and the argument appeared to gain momentum in the final days of the campaign. Voters said they were confused by the question, and some feared the change would have unintended consequences.
The election was seen as part of Ireland's evolution from a conservative, predominantly Roman Catholic country where divorce and abortion were illegal to an increasingly diverse and socially liberal society. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the percentage of residents who are Catholic has fallen from 94.9% in 1961 to 69% in 2022.
Social change is reflected in a series of changes to the Irish Constitution dating back to 1937, but it was not until 1949 that the country officially became known as the Republic of Ireland. Irish voters legalized divorce in her 1995 referendum. support same-sex marriage In the 2015 poll, abolished the ban on abortion In 2018.
The first question dealt with the part of the Constitution that promised to protect the family as the primary unit of society. Voters asked to remove the reference to marriage as “the basis of a family” and replace it with a clause that says families can be established “on the basis of marriage or other permanent relationships.” If passed, it would become the 39th Amendment to the Constitution.
Amendment 40 removes the statement that a woman's place in the home provides a common good that the state cannot provide, and if a mother ignores economic necessity, she must work out of economic necessity. The statement that there should be no obligation will be deleted. their duties at home. A clause would have been added stating that the state would endeavor to support “the provision of mutual care by family members.”
This debate was not as weighty as the debates over abortion and same-sex marriage. All of Ireland's main political parties supported the reforms, including coalition partners Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, as well as the main opposition party Sinn Féin.
One of the parties that called for a “no” vote was traditionalist group Aontu, which split from Sinn Féin over the party's support for legal abortion. Aontu leader Pedal Tobin said the government's wording was so vague that it would lead to legal disputes and that most people “don't understand what a permanent relationship means.”
The legal charity Free Legal Advice Center said the changes to the care clauses “reinforce harmful stereotypes, including the notion that care provision is a personal responsibility of unpaid family members…with no guarantee of state aid”. '' was included, he expressed concern.
Some disability rights campaigners argued that the focus on care treated people with disabilities as burdens rather than as individuals with rights that should be guaranteed by the state.
Opinion polls suggested support for the “yes” side on both sides, but as voting took place on Friday, many voters were still undecided. international women's day — approached, some thought the issues were too confusing or too urgent to change the Constitution.
“I thought it was too fast,” said Una Ui Douin, a nurse from Dublin. “I felt like I hadn't had enough time to think about it or read about it. So I was like, 'No, no,' just to be clear, there's no change.”
PhD student Caoimhe Doyle voted in favor of changing the definition of family, but against the care amendment because “I don't think it's explained well enough”. That's what he said.
“There are concerns that the burden on the state to take care of families will be lifted,” she says.
___
Merry reported from London.
