A GROUP OF barristers have argued for two No votes in the upcoming referendums, stating that the carers amendment is “utterly toothless”.

The Lawyers For No group, comprising around 10 members, raised concerns about inserting wording on “durable” relationships and on removing a reference to mothers’ duties in the home.

Two referendums will be held on 8 March proposing to change the Irish constitution.

The family amendment proposes extending the meaning of family beyond one defined by marriage and include those based on “durable” relationships.

The care amendment proposes deleting references to a woman’s roles and duties in the home, and replace it with a new article that acknowledges family carers.

Senator Michael McDowell, a former tanaiste and ex justice minister, said there would be a “decisive” 60-40 defeat of both referendums.

Leading the concerns on behalf of the Lawyers For No group, he said that extending the meaning of family to being based on durable relationships is “unnecessary” and “introduces huge uncertainty into our fundamental law”.

‘Half explanations’

He said that requests to define what durable is gets “confused, half explanations”, some of which are “mutually contradictory”.

He said that it is “unnecessary” to extend the meaning of family in the constitution to other durable relationships as “we’re of the view that there is nothing that a single parent or a de facto cohabiting couple cannot be given by statute”.

He said that during a Seanad debate, an amendment was put down proposing to define “durable” based on those decided by the Oireachtas and designated by law.

“If you think that by widening the definition of family, you’re simply engaging in some broad brush, gestural amendment of the Constitution, you have another thing coming because every single word that’s in the Constitution and that’s been taken out of the constitution will be parsed and analysed by all the courts in the future.”

He said that the Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman had argued this would create a “differential approach” between families.

“The door will be open to what we call concurrent or successive families with multiple partners common to each.

“Can a male partner be ‘the man’ in two families at the same time and can somebody leave a durable relationship and then get married in circumstances that leaves effectively two families in existence?”

On the care amendment, McDowell said labelling it the “women in the home” amendment is a “deliberate distortion” and said the new article on care is “utterly toothless”.

The current wording recognises that “by her life within the home” women supports the State, and that “mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.

The proposed wording is that the State “shall strive to support” the provision of care by family members.

‘Gender agenda’

Asked whether he believes the change could lead to the opposition of the home credit, McDowell said: “No, I don’t think you could do that.

“I’m not making any wild claims because the Oireachtas is the master of the law.”

Asked whether he would have voted Yes for the Citizens’ Assembly wording, that said the state would take “reasonable measures” to support carers, he said: “I’m generally reluctant on a separation of powers basis for the courts to get involved in budgetary matters.

Related Reads

Debate Room: The Yes and No sides set out their cases for the forthcoming referendums

Sinn Féin pledges to re-run referendums if they fall and the party gets into government

Here's how to register to vote (or update your information) ahead of next month's referendums

“I do believe that the place across the road (the Oireachtas) is the place for all these decisions to be made.”

He added: “I think there’s an agenda out there at the moment, I call it the gender agenda, to remove all gender from statutes and bills and the like and just to deal with people as if women and motherhood was just another thing that happens to persons and to take away the value that constitution gives them.”

He said he encourages everyone to come out to vote, but said he believed the No vote would be “much more highly motivated”.

‘Christmas cards in the Supreme Court’

Columnist and barrister Brenda Power said: “There is no pressing social injustice that they can point to that will be rectified by inserting the words durable relationships.”

Architect and barrister Maria Steen, barrister and TD Michael McNamara and several other barristers were also in attendance at the event on Thursday.

McNamara asked whether “we’re going to be presenting Christmas cards in the Supreme Court to force the state to recognise certain things?”

The Government parties, Sinn Fein, Labour, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, the National Women’s Council, One Family and Treoir are all advocating for a Yes vote in both referendums.

TD Peadar Toibin’s Aontu party and Senator Ronan Mullen are among those advocating for a No vote in both plebiscites.

Some organisations, such as Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac), are advocating for a Yes vote on the family amendment and a No vote for the care amendment.