Letters: Cheapening of marriage and limiting of State’s duty of care leads me to vote No

After careful consideration of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, I have concluded that a No vote is the safest option in both cases.

In the case of the family amendment, it is impossible not to conclude that the proposal gives the same constitutional status to “other durable relationships” as marriage.

This begs the question: why should anyone get married if they already have what they consider to be a dur-able relationship?

I recognise the worthy intention of the proposed change – to give explicit constitutional recognition to families not based directly on marriage. However, I think this objective could have been achieved without taking from the unique status of marriage.

The public and legal commitment to its durability is what makes marr-iage different from other durable relationships.

In the case of the care amendment, the worthy intention appears to be to remove outdated gender-based language from Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2.

This would be done by removing all mentions of “woman” and “mothers” in terms of references to their role in parenting and family care.

General terminology would be used, stating that care-giving in the home is provided “by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them”.

The gender element could have been dealt with better by adding the same references to “man” and “fathers” that is currently added to “woman” and “mothers”. That way, it would also have retained the implicit reference to parenting.

The proposed change in this amendment also appears to weaken the commitment of the State to support care in the family. Instead of a requirement on the State “to endeavour to ensure”, we get a promise that the State will “strive to support” care.

While the intention behind the proposed changes may have been good, the wording we are being asked to endorse is seriously flawed. That is why I will be voting No-No.

John Glennon, Address with editor

Problematic and unclear wording is the sword Yes campaign may perish on

I have listened to the many debates and read many articles for and against the Government’s proposal to amend the Constitution in the upcoming referendum.

The key sticking point for me relates to the State’s proposal to include the wording “other durable relationships” in Article 41.3.1, while deleting “on which the family is founded”.

This amendment is rather opaque and does not define what “other durable relationships” means. Why not insert “cohabiting relationships” instead of “durable relationships”?

The Government is asking us to vote on a change to the Constitution that may render a family founded on marriage no longer sacrosanct. At the same time, the courts will be left to define what “other durable relationships” actually means.

There is ample precedent in courts of cohabiting couples receiving the same rights as married couples, so why change what’s not broken?

With regard to the proposed changes in Article 42B, this looks like a ham-fisted approach by the Government to take away legal rights from carers and persons with disabilities.

The proposed insertion says the State will “strive to support” care in the family. This wording is far from a commitment and gives the Government a way not to show support. It should fail on the wording alone.

The proposal to strike out Article 41.2, which effectively says women working in the home are central to the good functioning of the State and society, is problematic. This would devalue women’s contribution to family and the home.

While all for equal rights, we don’t need badly-worded and opaque amendments to the Constitution to prove it.

Christy Galligan, Letterkenny, Co Donegal

Ironic that proposed use of ‘durable’ in Constitution doesn’t hold up to scrutiny

I struggle to understand how the word “durable”, in the context of a durable relationship, will be interpreted if placed in the Constitution.

It is worth noting that when we faced the abortion referendum, it was impossible to define “foetus”.

Maeve Burke, Loughrea, Co Galway

NGOs’ backing of Yes vote deeply worrying and calls democracy into question

Does Ellen Coyne not realise most of us are fully aware that Roderic O’Gorman instructed non-government organisations (NGOs) to promote a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum (‘“What we’re lacking in resources, we make up for in passion”, say No-vote campaigners’, Irish Independent, February 22)?

As NGOs are all funded by the Government and paid for out of our taxes, it makes one wonder about the meaning of democracy in this country. It also makes their promotion of a Yes vote utterly meaningless.

Mary Darby, Greystones, Co Wicklow

Donald Trump is probably not fit to walk the walk in his very own golden shoes

When self-proclaimed business leader Donald Trump produced his latest creation – the golden shoes – they sold out almost immediately.

However, a limited supply marketed to cultish supporters is Economics 101, marked under the heading “Supply and demand”. Well, perhaps this is not the case at the now-defunct Trump University.

It was interesting to see what else he was licensing. Google supplied many examples.

There are Trump urine-test kits, which made us think he was taking the piss out of buyers.

Trump steaks were also on offer, but they were probably full of fat.

Then we came to the Trump aftershave, which is useless to someone like me with a beard and real hair.

The last one was the Donald Trump playing cards. No aces in the deck and too many jokers.

The real worry is that he is trying to sell one more dangerous product – himself. There won’t be a refund for faulty service or no service at all.

Dennis Fitzgerald, Melbourne, Australia

Too much pressure placed on Israel when Hamas should release all hostages

The easiest way to achieve an Israeli ceasefire is two-pronged: Hamas should release all hostages and Hamas should withdraw from Gaza.

Why is everyone pressing Israel to cease and desist? It was Hamas that attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 and murdered 1,200 people as well as kidnapping over 200 .

It is time the world put pressure on the Arab countries who sponsor Hamas to free all hostages.

Anthony Costello, Co Galway

Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan’s exclusive take on the day’s news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.