If passed, the upcoming referendum to expand the definition of family in the Irish Constitution will not provide protections for polygamous relationships or throuples. Minister for Equality Roderic O’Gorman issued the clarification at a Dáil debate on Wednesday, January 17, less than two months before voting is due to take place.

In one of two referendums taking place on March 8, members of the population will be asked if they wish to amend Article 41 of the Constitution to provide for a wider concept of family. 

Currently, Article 41.1.1 recognises “the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.” The change proposed in the referendum would see the insertion of the words “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”, in respect to family.

Article 41.3.1, which presently reads, “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack,” would also be updated to remove the words “on which the Family is founded”.

In the Dáil, Minister O’Gorman stated that presently, the Constitution “excludes so many families”.

“I remember that in 2015, when I was also in a situation in which I was forever excluded from access to the family through the institution of marriage, that was my driving force for going out and knocking on doors,” he added.

The Minister was then questioned about what constitutes a “durable relationship” and if polygamy falls under the umbrella.

“Polygamous relationships have never been recognised under Irish law,” he responded.

“A polygamous relationship is not one that represents a fundamental unit of society and is not one that represents a moral institution in Irish law. It is not one that represents as durable.

“The very clear policy intention of the Government is that whether it is a polygamous relationship, I have heard the word ‘throuples’ thrown around…That issue has come up in some of the debate so we’re very clear such a relationship is not covered with the concept of durability and it is not covered in the expanded concept of the family that we are seeking to protect.” Minister O’Gorman continued.

Further concerns were raised about the word “durable”, including by Labour party leader Ivana Bacik, who called for it to be removed from the proposed changes.

In reply, Minister O’Gorman said the term is “intended to encompass relationships of strength, relationships of stability, relationships that consistent with the existing definition of family contained in Article 41 and that is the fundamental unit group of society.”

Debates also took place surrounding the second referendum being held on March 8, which concerns the role of women in the home and the recognition of all those who provide care. The government is proposing the deletion of Article 41.2 in the Constitution, which reads, “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

It would be replaced by Article 42B, which says that “The State recognises that the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”

Speaking about this referendum, Minister O’Gorman expressed, “Right now, our Constitution does not reflect our values because it places women in a particular category and does not suggest that men or anybody else should be involved in the business of care.”

It appeared that again, while opposition parties are supportive of the referendum in principle, they do not believe the wording is strong enough.