Ireland rejects constitutional changes and retains ‘women in the home’ language

Voters in Ireland rejected the proposal two proposed changes to the country’s constitution that would have removed language about women’s duties in the home and expanded the definition of family outside of marriage.

The results, announced on Saturday, were an unexpected defeat for equality activists and for Leo Varadkar, the taoiseach, or prime minister.

Mr Varadkar said late on Saturday afternoon, after most votes had been counted, that it was clear the proposals had been rejected and the Government respected the results.

“As head of government and on behalf of the government, we accept responsibility for the outcome,” he said. “It was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote ‘yes’, and we clearly failed to do so.”

Irish citizens went to the polls on Friday to vote in two referenda to amend the country’s 87-year-old constitution, which was drawn up at a time when the influence of the Roman Catholic Church over many aspects of life in Ireland has soared. used to be.

Supporters saw the proposed amendments, which were supported by all Irish political parties, as essential to ensure that the constitution reflected the country’s more secular and liberal modern identity. But many of those who voted in the referendums said ‘no’ on both issues under consideration.

Many analysts and politicians said the results were more complex than a simple rejection of the proposed changes. Lower than expected voter turnout and the confusing message of the ‘Yes’ campaign may have contributed to the proposals’ failure.

During Friday’s referendums, voters were asked to think two separate questions.

The first was whether Article 41 of the Constitution should be amended to provide for a broader concept of family. The proposed language would have recognized a family, “whether based on marriage or other permanent relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unitary group of society,” and eliminated another clause.

The second concerned Article 41.2, which equality activists and women’s rights groups have opposed for decades. It says that the state “recognises that woman, through her life within the home, provides the state with a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and that it “will seek to ensure that mothers are not obliged by economic necessity to engage during childbirth to neglecting their duties at home.”

The public voted against replacing that language with a new article recognizing all caregivers.

The outcome over the “indoor living” clause was met with disappointment among women’s rights groups who had long campaigned for the abolition of the language, which was seen as a relic of a patriarchal past.

Even before the constitution was first ratified in 1937, some women had opposed the introduction of the language, and this year the National Women’s Council of Ireland recreated their protest outside government buildings.

In recent decades, the Irish public has made a series of significant changes that reverse socially conservative policies. Ireland voted in favor in 1995 end the ban on divorce, with a later referendum in 2019 further liberalizing divorce laws. The country voted for it in 2015 legalize gay marriageand a referendum was held on this in 2018 repealed the amendment that banned abortion.

The latest referendums were held after a Citizens’ Assembly on gender equality was held in 2020 and 2021, which made a series of recommendations, including an amendment to the constitution. Some people had argued that the planned changes did not go far enough, and that may have been part of the reason why the proposals were rejected.

Some opponents of the amendments had argued that the proposed language on “enduring relationships” was too broadly defined. Others had said the care provisions outlined to replace language on women’s duties did not go far enough to force the state to protect caregivers.

Michael McDowell, a lawyer who is an independent member of the upper house of the Irish legislature and was once deputy leader of the government, had campaigned for a “No” vote.

“The government has misjudged the mood of the electorate and presented them with proposals that they have not explained, proposals that could have serious consequences,” he told RTÉ, the public broadcaster, adding that the language had been changed without much consultation had been passed by the legislature.