OPINION: Drawing the referendum battle lines

AND so, the white flag has been raised for two referendums to change the constitution, to be held in March. And already, the battle lines are being drawn for a campaign that, predictably, will see facts and truth stretched to their limits, and all kinds of red herring being served up on the national dinner plate.
In summary, the first referendum proposes that the old definition of family, based on marriage, will be extended to include those based on ‘other durable relationships’. The other referendum will remove reference to a woman’s life in the home with the addition of a new article on the provision of care by members of a family to each other.
Tampering with the constitution is an exercise usually embarked on with trepidation by the government of the day, for two good reasons.
The first is the tendency of the electorate to use a referendum vote to give the administration a knuckle rap, a coded message to those in power that, whatever about the merits of the proposal, we don’t like the way the country is being run.
The second, more serious reason, is that referendums tend to be voted down because, for diametrically opposed reasons, they fail to satisfy the demands of both supporters and opponents. Those who support the intent of the proposal tend to vote for its rejection because it fails to go far enough; those at the other end of the ideology spectrum vote against because they never agreed with the proposal from day one.
It is the latter fear that, as of now, is engaging the attention of those most eagerly promoting the constitutional changes.
Already, six major national groups – including the National Womens’ Council and trade union SIPTU – have given the measures their backing, but even they are conscious of the undercurrent of unrest fuelled by the belief that the measures do not go far enough. The groups’ leaders argue that a splintering of support, merely on the grounds that the measures are not potent enough, would be counter productive. Better a bird in the hand than total rejection, they say. Incremental advances can always be built on in the future, and making haste slowly is better than no forward movement at all.
If, as seems likely, the measure on redefining the definition of family proves the more contentious, then we can expect much muddying of the waters on both sides. Such tactics will, unfortunately, be greatly enabled by the vague, imprecise wording we will be asked to cast judgement on.
There is nothing in the proposal to determine what exactly constitutes an ‘other durable relationship’, so that it may well be left to the courts to answer that question on a case by case basis. At first glance, quite clearly, the provision is intended to give legal recognition to couples who live together in a mutually supportive relationship but who, for whatever reason, choose to remain unmarried. All of which, to most people, would be perfectly reasonable.
In Ireland, we are said to be preoccupied with property and inheritance rights. That being so, and if a durable relationship becomes the definition of family, may we expect that the courts will soon become weighed down under competing claims to land and title?
More ominously, opponents of the measure have been warning of unintended consequences, one of which concerns family reunification. At present, somebody granted residency here may bring their spouse and children to Ireland. But if family comes to mean ‘other durable relationship’, does that open the door to unrelated outsiders being granted entry under the new definition?
And if that smacks of a playing of the race card, then there will be much more to come.