CIVICUS speaks with Sinéad Murray, Communications, Membership and Information Officer at Treoir, about Ireland’s recent unsuccessful Family and Care Referendums.
Set up in 1976, Treoir, is a federation of Irish civil society organisations (CSOs) that promote the rights and best interests of unmarried parents and their children in order to achieve legal and societal equality.
What were the recent referendums held in Ireland about, and why were they important?
The two referendums held on 8 March were aimed at changing the constitution, which was drafted in 1937 and heavily influenced by traditional social values regarding women, religion and family. Several referendums were held in the past few years to remove outdated concepts and replace them with more inclusive ones that reflect the modernisation of our society, and these two referendums were part of this trend.
Although 40 per cent of families in Ireland are not based on marriage, article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland defines family on the basis of marriage. It only offers full protections to families based on traditional Catholic values, leaving out other family types, including single-parent or lone-parent families, cohabiting couples with or without children and kinship care families, in which the extended family steps in to take care of a child when a parent isn’t available.
The Family Amendment sought to rectify this by providing greater constitutional protections and societal recognition to diverse family types and promoting gender equality in caregiving roles. The Care Amendment aimed to address the sexist language in a clause of article 41 that is colloquially known as the ‘women’s place in the home’ clause. It implies that women who work outside the home are neglecting their domestic duties.
Although over time progress has been made in removing legislative discrimination against non-marital families, discrimination and inequality persist. For instance, lone-parent families face higher rates of poverty and housing insecurity. Further, since the 1930s, the government has regularly cited the constitutional definition of family to justify its discriminatory policies against non-marital families.
Feminists have long campaigned against these constitutional clauses because they have contributed to a considerable amount of legislation that prevented women’s equality. To add insult to injury, article 41 doesn’t even recognise rights or provide protection for women who stay in the home, including married women, lone mothers, stay-at-home mothers and female family carers.
Instead of simply deleting the article, the proposed amendment aimed to establish a positive, rights-based, gender-neutral, modern obligation of the state to protect caregiving, which is still overwhelmingly done by women.
Unfortunately, neither amendment was passed. Sixty-seven per cent of voters rejected the Family Amendment and 74 per cent voted against the Care Amendment.
What can the results be attributed to?
Opinion polls indicated that around 20 per cent of voters would reject the amendments regardless of how they were worded or what arguments they heard in the campaign. I would argue this corresponds roughly to the conservative and far-right electorate. Although conservative and traditional voters likely contributed to the referendums’ outcome, they were far from its primary drivers.
The numbers clearly indicate that many people who voted no in these two referendums had voted yes in the successful referendums on same-sex marriage in 2015 and on abortion in 2018. We need to understand why. Exit polls revealed the main reasons behind the two no votes in the 2024 referendums: a lack of clarity or information, a rushed process, lack of public consultation, a change perceived as insufficient and a general distrust in the current government.
It was the government’s misunderstanding of past referendum successes that led to the lack of clarity and structure in this process. They took the progressive vote for granted and underestimated the importance of the actual wording and public engagement.
The government published the wording for both referendums in December 2023, leaving a remarkably short window for campaign activities. It gave itself only six weeks to educate the public about the referendum process, communicate what was being voted on and try to persuade people to approve the changes. This limited timeframe posed logistical and political challenges.
Surprisingly, the chosen wording deviated from the terms proposed by the Citizen’s Assembly – a body made up of randomly selected citizens tasked with deliberating on key political issues – and the Joint Oireachtas (Ireland’s two houses in parliament) Committee on Gender Equality. The Care Referendum, for instance, focused solely on protecting family care instead of encompassing care provided in the broader community. The government’s commitment to ‘strive’ to support care rather than being mandated to do so also raised concerns. The formulation for the Family referendum included terms such as ‘durable relationships’ that were undefined and caused further confusion.
The rather abstract language used in both referendums also failed to afford enforceable new rights to the people concerned. If passed, the amendments wouldn’t have led to immediate, practical improvements in the lives of family carers or non-marital families – they would only have given them the right to challenge government decisions in court, which is a costly, intimidating and lengthy process. If the abortion referendum had only given women the right to go to court to demand an abortion, it likely wouldn’t have passed either.
This lack of tangible benefits left many uncertain whether to vote in favour, strengthening the campaign against and allowing for misinformation to proliferate, driven particularly by far-right groups.
Lack of trust in the current government exacerbated uncertainty. Public perceptions of the government’s failure to address pressing issues such as the housing and cost of living crises contributed to scepticism about the proposed changes.
In essence, results were driven by a combination of factors and underscored the importance of clear communication, grassroots engagement and addressing public concerns in referendum campaigns.
What should the government have learned from the successful referendums on abortion and same-sex marriage?
The most serious mistake was to think that because they were on the same line of progressive, inclusive and rights-expanding change, the new referendums would produce the same result as the referendums on abortion and same-sex marriage. The government shouldn’t have taken a yes vote for granted.
The government clearly misread the situation following the legalisation of same-sex marriage and abortion. In fact, the outcomes on abortion and same-sex marriage were far from preordained: they were the result of extensive, years-long grassroots mobilisation. Thousands of people advocated and protested for same-sex marriage and abortion for many years. Campaigns centred in the personal experiences of women and LGBTQI+ people affected by Ireland’s restrictive laws. Thousands of LGBTQI+ people spoke up about the stigma and discrimination they and their loved ones continued to face even after the passage of the 2011 civil partnership law. High profile cases such as that of Savita Halappanavar, who died after being refused an abortion, galvanised tens of thousands of women to speak out. The purpose was clear and the benefits of the referendums were obvious.
The promise of tangible rights also motivated supporters. They knew that even if removing the constitutional ban on abortion would not result in abortions becoming legal overnight, the government had published a clear legislative plan for if the referendum passed. During the referendum campaign, it also said it would push for the legalisation of abortion up to 12 weeks into pregnancy. This gave people certainty about what they were voting for. Similarly, it was clear that same-sex couples after the referendum campaign would have the same rights and responsibilities associated with marriage as opposite-sex couples.
The government didn’t see this, and so it overlooked the need to engage affected communities. Mobilising these groups is the most important asset in a referendum campaign and this was lost in the Family and Care referendums by the wording. The government also failed to clearly articulate the benefits of a yes vote. Unlike previous campaigns, the Family and Care referendums lacked a compelling narrative to rally public support. Legal or statistical arguments don’t persuade voters – personal stories do. But without the affected communities on board, those personal stories were hard to share. When those stories were shared, it was hard to definitely show how the referendum would adequately address the discrimination people faced. Lacking strong grassroots support, the Family and Care referendums faced great challenges in mobilising public opinion.
Who campaigned for, and who campaigned against the proposed changes?
Despite these shortcomings, most political parties supported a yes vote for both amendments, a common stance in Irish referendums. Although at Treoir we believed the government’s wording fell short, we still advocated for the change as we believed it was a step towards greater equality. Along with the National Women’s Council, One Family and Family Carers Ireland we led a campaign formed by 20 CSOs pushing for two yes votes.
Only two political parties – both of which hold a small number of seats in the Dáil, the lower house of parliament – opposed the changes: Aontú and Independent Ireland. Their campaign focused on the confusing wording chosen by the government, and used the regular slogan of campaigners against change in referendums – ‘Don't know? Vote no!’. For them, the referendum was a cover to push for increased immigration or the legalisation of polygamy in Ireland. They also argued that the ‘women’s place in the home’ clause was a positive element of the constitution and removing terms like ‘mother’ and ‘women’ was part of an agenda to eradicate the concept of biological women. This stance was also supported by the Catholic Bishops Conference and the Iona Institute, a Catholic pressure group.
Additionally, a third campaign emerged in support of a mixed vote, with the Free Legal Advice Centre among its supporters. They viewed the Family Amendment as an improvement but expressed reservations about the Care Amendment, arguing it would not provide any new rights and would perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women and people with disabilities. Equality Not Care, a group formed during the campaign, advocated for a no vote on the Care Amendment due to the impacts on people with disabilities, who would be considered as ‘subjects’ of care rather than independent rights-holders.
What’s next in the struggle for gender rights in Ireland?
The referendum campaign highlighted many of the issues that need to be urgently addressed, including the disproportionate number of lone-parent families, with 80 per cent of those headed by women facing poverty and housing insecurity. There’s also a need for a public childcare system, which would be essential for gender equality and hugely beneficial for lone parent families, along with real support for all types of carers, support for independent living for people with disabilities and family justice reform.
Following this defeat, another referendum on these articles is highly unlikely any time soon. However, changing the constitution wasn’t civil society’s primary focus to begin with. Moving forward, we should concentrate our efforts in pushing for legislative measures rather than constitutional amendments.
Civic space in Ireland is rated ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Treoir through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, follow @treoir on Twitter, and contact Sinéad through LinkedIn.
