idiots and those who are a menace to society will be voting yes.
Their stupidity is only surpassed by their arrogance.
And as much as some of you may find this confusing, I'll be voting No, in spite of the above comments.
The state has as bad a record as priests in childcare.
And isn't adoption allowed under the 1988 Adoption Act when married parents abandon their children? So adoption of the children of married couples is allowed for under certain conditions. For this reason I would agree with Hugh O'Flaherty when he says that voluntary adoption of married couples children can easily be catered for by legislation.
If correct, the arguments mentioned in the OP look like a case for accepting the referendum rather than rejecting it.
Personally I feel the proposed wording is so vague that it does not substantially alter any philosophical principle which is not already contained within the Constitution.
Have to admit I'm confused about this proposal. The lack of proper debate here doesn't help me.
The Facebook page of the Alliance of Parents against the State says:
There is a case before the Supreme Court right now where a couple are trying to get the in-camera rule eased, just to allow a Garda to investigate perjury in a District Court to be investigated.When a child is in "Care", their family can do nothing about it. I mentioned the case of a 15 year old girl raped in "Care" and the mother cannot do anything about it. If the mother walks into a Garda station she could be arrested for trying to report a crime under the In Camera Rule. The mother can only complain to the HSE and only the HSE can investigate.
Does the in camera rule cover all events connected to cases of children in care or does it apply only to what is said in court?
Jonathan Swift, if he were alive today, would not have to conceive of an imaginary land of Lilliputians - he would just have to look around him for the bizarre!