Are there any actual reasons to vote no?
There has been very little debate about the proposed amendment. The no ideas seem to fall into a few categories:
1. The Constitutional purist
The fewer words in a Constitution the better and additional words can have unintended consequences. The beauty of this argument is you don't have to specify those consequences and just refer to x case.
2. The State is a poor substitute for parents.
This argument is great because there is a wealth of evidence of where the State has failed eg industrial schools, magdelene laundries, state facilitating illegal adoptions, HSE losing children who die on its watch, and Judge Reilly's report into St Patrick's institute. This argument ignores the fact that a parent or parents had already failed.
3. It's a power grab by the State
That's kind of the point, the State has identified a gap in the law, where it believes the laws are deficient and it cannot provide the support it needs.
4. We don't need the referendum
Relying on a partial quote by Hardiman J in the Baby Ann case, they ask would its provisions have made any difference to the abuse suffered since the foundation of the State. I don't think a referendum is required for extending marriage to same-sex partners, but Eamon Gilmore insists on going down the referendum route, it would not stop me voting for it.
If every child has right to be heard, then failed deportees will rely on their childrens' rights to stop it. Except of course the right to be heard is narrower than that.
The above doesn't wash for me, but I don't want to misinterpret any legitimate views if those opposing the referendum but are there any actual reasons to vote no?
6. The yes side are lying liars who lie (lie is unspecified)
7. The yes side have not met the standard of proof to shift the onus to the no side.
8. Everyone seems to be voting yes, so a no vote provides space to think.