Dear Editor,
Re: the letter from 13 Constitutional and Family lawyers (2 March). In brief, they are wrong.
The term 'durable relationship' is inclusive and not exclusive. A YES vote would legalise polygamy. The proposed change of Article 41.1.1 reads: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships . . . "
If the proposed change is adopted, and if challenged, the Courts could only consider if polygamous relationships (including marriages) can be 'durable relationships' as would then be permitted under the amended Constitutional Article.
It is wrong and misleading if the legal professionals who signed the letter are asserting that polygamous relationships cannot be durable, including within marriages.
Yours sincerely
John Christopher Walsh
Re: the letter from 13 Constitutional and Family lawyers (2 March). In brief, they are wrong.
The term 'durable relationship' is inclusive and not exclusive. A YES vote would legalise polygamy. The proposed change of Article 41.1.1 reads: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships . . . "
If the proposed change is adopted, and if challenged, the Courts could only consider if polygamous relationships (including marriages) can be 'durable relationships' as would then be permitted under the amended Constitutional Article.
It is wrong and misleading if the legal professionals who signed the letter are asserting that polygamous relationships cannot be durable, including within marriages.
Yours sincerely
John Christopher Walsh
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.
No comments