Sinead Corcoran voiced her proactive approach in voting and ensuring referendums were accurately implemented, especially in regards to her offspring. She aimed to always exercise her voting right and gave the nod in agreement twice. Sinead preferred to rely upon neutral resources to avoid being swayed by extreme political viewpoints. Among these resources, she considered the Electoral Commission website as particularly helpful. She has always been a proponent of inclusive changes that don’t infringe upon her rights as a mother.
According to her, the constitutional verbiage that refers to a woman’s life at home is antiquated and has always had a sexist outlook. Sinead, being a working woman herself, appreciates that her husband is the main caregiver for their children. Asked about the term “durable relationships”, she expressed no concerns, believing that relationship stability and security mattered more than obtaining a marriage certificate.
Meanwhile, Michael Finglas firmly disagreed. He thought that there were other viable areas for change that are being overlooked while this matter has been given undue priority; he likened this trend to misguided social awareness. Michael believed that the issues raised were trivial and have brought the nation to a ruinous point. In his view, those who are not actively involved should refrain from revising the rules.
Regarding extending the definition of a family, he stood firm, voting against it as a form of protest. When it came to the care amendment, he was nostalgic about a time when motherhood was primarily defined by a woman’s role in the home. Raised by a caring woman and married to another, he simply wasn’t open to alternatives.
Alternatively, Maeve Brady had a mixed response; she agreed to one proposal but disagreed with the other.
Drawing from all the commentary on the subject, what stood out for her as the driving factor to voice her opinion was the ‘mother issue’. She argued that the proposed change doesn’t provide exhaustive support for caregivers and that the opposition team communicated their points with greater intensity. Her information source primarily came from television and radio debates. To her understanding, the government was pushing for an affirmative response, not providing enough clarity to back the change. Within her circle of friends, there were diverse voting choices, with some voting in favour and others against.
Monica Caffrey was strongly against the change. She made two points; first, the lack of sufficient information for the people, and secondly, the idea of eradicating ‘mother’ from the constitution. She was against the broadening of the family definition, suspecting that the true intention behind the move was concealed. In her opinion, without enough details, the safest route was to vote against the change, hoping that more information might be provided in the future.
Des Mooney, on the other hand, voted in favour. He believed this to be the progressive route, altering societal perspectives of families. His stance was influenced by his personal situation, as his long-term partner and himself weren’t officially recognised as a family. He voiced his support for the care change, based on his experience working as a carer in a nursing home and community, witnessing the dire necessity of assistance for individuals and their families.
For frequent updates and comprehensive analyses on the matter, you could listen to our Inside Politics Podcast, enable push alerts for instant reports and analyses delivered to your mobile, and follow The Irish Times on WhatsApp.