OVER ARTICLE 41 of the Constitution, labelled simply ‘The Family’, lies the long shadow of John Charles McQuaid.
Several successive governments have suggested a referendum on Article 41.2, reflecting a general consensus that the language doesn’t reflect 21st century values. But it has never come to pass – largely because there’s never been an equivalent consensus on what to put to voters. In 1989, for example, a housewife separating from her husband argued that her work within the family home entitled her to a share of the property, whereas under Irish law at the time she would get nothing. While the High Court’s Mr Justice Robert Barr initially ruled in her favour, a unanimous Supreme Court promptly slapped him down.
Related Read 27.01.22 FactFind: Women are just over 50% of the population. Do they have 50% of jobs and economic power? Governments are traditionally reluctant to put “concrete socio-economic rights” in the Constitution because it means the courts could order the State to spend money providing services or benefits that it hadn’t budgeted for, potentially at the expense of manifesto commitments. Financial decisions are generally for ministers, not judges.The latest report on Article 41.2 reform was by the Citizens’ Assembly on gender equality in April 2021.
The proposal on Article 41.2 is “part of the package of measures necessary. We cannot stand over retention of this highly gendered, really sexist text in our Constitution while we’re moving towards a more equal society generally”.
Question is; who theology of masculinity benefits from it's retention?