In a charged RTE debate days before the vote, conservative campaigner Maria Steen clashed with the Irish deputy prime minister, Micheál Martin, insisting that “the reality is that the majority of women do the majority of work in the home.”
The second question proposed erasing a reference deemed outdated by referring to a women’s place as being in the home, which suggests they have a duty to take care of other people under their roof. It would have been replaced with broader language, including a clause recognizing care provided by family members for one another.
The Associated Press reported advocates for the rights of the disabled felt the language mitigated the state’s obligations to care for them. 身障權益倡議者認為這些用詞減少了國家對他們的照顧責任
Moreover, the second amendment on Saturday's ballot would have added a clause saying the state would, "strive to support the provision of care by members of a family to one another."
Those opposed to the changes argued against their wording as well as the potential unintended consequences they represented. Ramifications for taxes and citizenship, for instance, were flagged as concerns.
Another major point of contention was a fear that the soft wording of "striving" would redefine caregiving as a private responsibility, not one of the state. 還有引發「對身障者的照顧成為私人家庭的責任而非政府的責任」這樣的疑慮
In effect, the proposal to spread the burden of care for people with disabilities to the entire family from only the mother became a dispute about the extent or willingness of the state to support carers.
But “No” campaigners argued the concept of a “durable relationship” was undefined and confusing and that women and mothers are being “cancelled” from the constitution.
Meanwhile, ultra-conservative voices argued the changes could constitutionally protect polygamous relationships and increase immigration via migrant family reunions – claims all denied by the government.
This shift has been encapsulated in changes to an outdated constitution where single women, until 1973, had to resign from their jobs upon getting married, and married women could not apply for vacancies. 愛爾蘭憲法曾經規定單身女子一旦結婚就要離職 已婚婦女不能應徵工作 直到1973才更改
Brenda Power, a barrister and a member of the Lawyers For No group said the constitution "says the work women do in the home is fantastic… can't argue with that".
"And it says that no woman should be forced to work outside the home if she'd prefer to be at home with her children.
Motherhood is not gender neutral. It was clearly insulting to women who make up 98 per cent of carers and 100 per cent of mothers to remove the recognition afforded to mothers from the Constitution. In fact the Constitution has 112 references to men or male pronouns and just six for women.
A recent Amárach poll repeats the findings of previous surveys and shows that 69% of mothers would prefer to stay at home with their children rather than go out to work if money was no issue. A survey by a previous Minister for Children Katherine Zappone which sought the views of children in relation to childcare found that just 1% wanted to be in a crèche.
This mother is caring full time for her severely disabled son and there isn’t anyone in this country who would begrudge her the full carer’s allowance, without it being means tested, not to speak of full supports including respite care or whatever she feels she needs.
Instead of a new wording which might have guaranteed Constitutional support for such provision and one which would give the disabled autonomy regarding their needs there was a bid to remove “mothers” like this particular mother from being able to cite Art 41.2 in her appeal next month.
（略）
反對派人士則主張，「長期關係」的概念缺乏明確定義且令人困惑，婦女和母親的傳統角色將從憲法中遭到「刪除」。保守派也相信，這些變化形同在憲法層面上保護多重伴侶制度，並將藉由允許移民家庭團聚增加移民人數，政府當局則否認上述指控。
愛爾蘭憲法認為家庭奠基於婚姻
並且提到女人透過她的家庭生活支持國家
憲法會說家庭奠基於婚姻或是其他長久的關係
保守派社運者Maria Steen堅持主張：「事實就是大部分的女人做了家庭內部大部分的工作。」
美國之音
一部分選民表示看不懂要投什麼
另一部分選民認為這些文字敘述可能會導致意料之外的結果
身障權益倡議者認為這些用詞減少了國家對他們的照顧責任
將女人在家庭中的角色改成家庭成員互相照顧這則修憲
引發許多疑慮
還有引發「對身障者的照顧成為私人家庭的責任而非政府的責任」這樣的疑慮
但隨著公投靠近，保守派選民聲勢越來越高
In effect, the proposal to spread the burden of care for people with disabilities to the entire family from only the mother became a dispute about the extent or willingness of the state to support carers.
大概是文化隔閡，我看不太懂
愛爾蘭政府舉例的是同居情侶跟子女，但「極端保守派」認為這讓憲法保障多重伴侶關係，並保障移民家庭的團聚
愛爾蘭政府一概否認
愛爾蘭憲法曾經規定單身女子一旦結婚就要離職
已婚婦女不能應徵工作
直到1973才更改
"And it says that no woman should be forced to work outside the home if she'd prefer to be at home with her children.
母親想要在家中照顧兒童是受憲法保護的權利
不能逼母親就業
所以有很多相關的補助
還有離婚的贍養費
怪不得事情這麼大條
他們將母親的照顧視為責任同時也是權益
是社會/國家必須支持的選擇