What is family?

In 1936, Éamon de Valera sat down with his wife Jane O'Flanagan Sinéad Ní Fhlannagáin of 26 years [together L] and conjured up a vision for Ireland as a New 1937 Constitution which would sever the final apron strings attaching the 26 counties to the United Kingdom. It's an interesting document because it sees certain 'truths' to be self-evident, which a majority of the citizenry today would give at least a bit of side-eye: "special position" of the Catholic Church Really?  But it was also pragmatic and did its best to be culturally inclusive. The reason Home Education was explicitly allowed in Article 42 was to not frighten the Protestant horses so much that they sent their middle-class chaps to boarding school in England . . . and they never came back to fill the ranks of the professions. In other ways Éamon and Sinéad endorsed frankly unhinged fantasies where what Ireland should be [comely maidens dancing at the cross-roads etc.] was at considerable odds with what Ireland actually be like [Angela's Ashes etc.]. 

In 1972, "special position" of the Catholic Church was put aside but we still have Article 44: "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion". Only one god, though, and check the pronouns.

We're due to have another referendum on 8th March 2024 to unpack some more of Éamon and Sinéad's 1930s certainties and replace their words with something that acknowledges 2020s realities in the state we inhabit. This year its Article 41 and its ideas about the family.  The Family is Top Dog in É&S's Ireland: they decide on the children's education in Article 42, for example. The State just ponies up the resources for this to happen "provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents". But the Family in the Ideal Ireland was 1 man married to 1 woman with innumerable children. Well we've dealt with part of that by freeing the Gays legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015. But there are so many edge cases yet. Families without children, families with only one parent, multi-generational households, co-habiting BFFs. 

So the First Q on the referendum is asking whether we want to add "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, yada yada". WTF? The durable relationships are neither defined, nor designated. Senior lawyers are gleefully rubbing their wigs together contemplating years of litigation to bed this woolly aspiration into case law. But I guess at least it opens the door to other models of families than were dreamed of in 1937. Tá, so? Married families are still given Top Dog status, though "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.” Some are more equal than others.

The second Q attempts to deal with one of the most egregious anachronisms left in the Constitution. Sinéad never had to go to work because, even when he was in gaol or fund-raising in the USA, there was enough money to allow her to deliver 7 children in 12 years, then feed them, clothe them, and teach them manners without having to take in someone else's laundry to make it possible. This part of the referendum seeks to delete

Article 41.2.1 “In particular, 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.”
Article 41.2.2 “The State shall, therefore, 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.”

Hey hey bring it On! Only dinosaurs (TyrannoPatriarchus rex etc.) want to keep women bacon-and-cabbaging in the kitchen or reddening the front doorstep or changing diapers when they could be out fuelling the economy or fulfilling their dreams or inspiring us all to Citius, Altius, Fortius. But, the government has decided to simplify the É&S vision of  bosom-in-the-floral-pinnie to "one who cares" and replace 41.2.1 & 41.2.2 with this ghastly kludge:

“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.”

Much steam has been blown off about the retreat from endeavour to ensure to strive to support but that's moot, because, since 1937, to the nearest whole number, zero money has been allocated to offset the reality of mothers being obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour outside then home. Unless you count child benefit at €140 / month / child - that's just over €4.50 a day.  The average family roof-over-head payments [not incl heat, food, transport, clothing, insurance fripperies] are currently €1,000 /month. 

And nobody troubled to ask those in need of care [not all of whom are inarticulate blobs to be patronized] what they wanted out of the process. Indeed, The Beloved had to bug out of a referendum-explainer zoom-call convened by The Carers of Ireland. Too many people moaning on about the crappy, ambiguous language that finished up on the ballot paper rather than making peace with the artificial Nil / Tá binary and deciding how to vote.

Farming Bund the ICMSA won't be buying a pig-in-a-poke but seek clarity on "Durable relationships" in the context of farm succession. Guest v Guest dragged the issue to the UK Supreme Court [prev].