Ireland's attempt to modernize its constitution's view of women and family suffered a resounding defeat on Saturday as voters rejected two proposed amendments, deeming them vague and potentially threatening to property rights. The government conceded defeat as early returns from Friday's referendums confirmed that an overwhelming majority had voted "no" to the proposed changes to constitutional clauses on marriage and family care.
In the final results, the amendment to alter the constitutional definition of family was rejected by 67.7 percent of voters, while the proposed changes on family care suffered an even greater defeat, with 73.9 percent voting against-the worst defeat of an amendment in Irish constitutional history.
The outcome means that the 1937 constitution, which serves as the legal bedrock for the Irish state, will continue to declare marriage a requirement for any family and define women's value to society as delivering "duties in the home." These notions from a bygone era stand in stark contrast to the reality of modern Ireland, where two-fifths of children are born out of wedlock, and most women work outside the home.
The government, backed by all the main opposition parties, had sought public acceptance of two amendments. The first recognized that people in "other durable relationships" could also form family units, while the second stated that providing care should be a responsibility for the wider family, not just the mother.
However, the government struggled to define what "other durable relationships" might entail in legal disputes, stoking fears among conservatives in this property-obsessed nation that inheritance rights could become a broadening battleground involving estranged wives, live-in girlfriends, and other relations.
To the frustration of the left, the government also chose not to amend the long-criticized "women in the home" section using stronger language recommended by a citizens' assembly in 2021 and a parliamentary committee on gender equality in 2022. Instead, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar unveiled different proposals in December that sidestepped much of what the all-party committee had sought. These texts were hastily pushed through parliament the following month with minimal debate and no detailed committee scrutiny, with the vote timed to coincide with International Women's Day.
Prominent rights activists for the disabled and special-needs children campaigned against the government's blueprint, arguing that it left the family responsible for care while the state would merely "strive" to support them-a stance many viewed as a cheapskate cop-out.
Further damaging the government's cause was an eve-of-poll leak of internal advice from its attorney general, Rossa Fanning, cautioning that the amendments contained debatable language that could lead to unexpected outcomes in the courts.
"There seemed to be little interest in the government to listening to concerns on the wording, and maybe a little arrogance in believing that voters would get carried away on a wave of feminism on International Women's Day and simply pass these two referendums," said Laura Cahillane, an associate professor at the University of Limerick School of Law.
"You saw very little campaigning on the 'yes' side and very little effort to reassure people about all these concerns arising on the 'no' side," she added. "When people are confused, they are more likely to reject change."
The defeat of the amendments marks a significant setback for the government's efforts to modernize the constitution and bring it in line with the realities of contemporary Irish society. As the nation grapples with the aftermath of the referendums, questions arise about the government's approach to constitutional reform and its ability to effectively communicate and build consensus around proposed changes.
With the old-fashioned notions of family and women's roles enshrined in the constitution left intact, Ireland faces the challenge of reconciling its legal framework with the evolving values and lived experiences of its citizens. The outcome of these historic referendums serves as a reminder of the complexities and sensitivities surrounding constitutional change and the importance of engaging in thorough public discourse and consultation when attempting to redefine long-standing societal norms.
