Ireland draws a line

In 2015, voters in Ireland supported a constitutional change that legalized same-sex marriage. They again went to the polls in 2018 and liberalized abortion laws. Within the space of three years, Ireland seemed to repudiate its reputation as one of the most socially conservative and religious nations in Europe. Western Europe has long been one of the most secular parts of the globe. Ireland was an outlier, but seemed to be catching up fast.

Emboldened by these results, political elites in the country moved to take additional constitutional strides toward further liberalization. Two new votes, aimed at changing language centering marriage and the status of women within families, had the backing of virtually every major political party. Because of the recent history of constitutional changes and the broad support of the major parties, the changes to the Irish Constitution appeared to be a fait accompli. To the surprise of virtually everyone, the measures were overwhelmingly defeated.

One of the fascinating features of the Irish Constitution has been its acknowledgment of the primacy of the family as the “fundamental unit” of society that possesses “inalienable” rights that are prior to the laws written by political bodies. That kind of language is radical in a world that seems to believe that any law (divine, natural, or human) can be changed to suit the evolving moral attitudes of whatever majority can be assembled. Further, the constitution states that the law will specially address itself to guarding the institution of marriage as the foundation of the family.

Dr. Calum Miller pointed out that in response to this language, one of the proposed amendments sought to expand marriage to “marriage and other durable relationships.” That might seem to be a minor point, but why pursue it if not to demote marriage yet further as the building block of society? The Bible establishes marriage of the man and woman right from the beginning, but one might also note that even a pragmatic authority such as Aristotle sees the procreative pair as the fundamental political unit and not an endless series of atomic individuals in various combinations.

The second proposed amendment addressed itself to the constitution’s emphasis on the woman as an essential contributor to the common good through her role as a caregiver. In light of this view of the woman’s indispensability within the home and family, the state pledges itself to prevent women from being forced by “economic necessity” to enter the labor market. The referendum would replace the language about women with a broader reference to “the provision of care by members of a family.”

In light of general trends of the last several decades—and the more radical changes wrought in the last 10-15 years—it is hard to understand exactly why these proposed amendments that sought to make views of things such as the family and the place of women as caregivers more elastic would lose by such large margins. Are these the voters we’ve been accustomed to seeing in the West over the last half century? Haven’t we watched the two-income family become a dominant reality? And have we not seen a near manic pursuit of a wide variety of domestic arrangements seeking equal status with the nuclear model? Why have Irish voters suddenly drawn a line?

It would seem there are a few possible answers. The first, and perhaps more obvious, would be that voters weren’t sure what the actual impact of these changes to the Irish constitution would be. They may have resisted being dragooned into something as significant as a constitutional change for reasons that may have appeared no better than virtue signaling. Maybe they thought there had been enough change brought about by previous referenda and that more would be merely symbolic and an invitation to more social grandstanding. Perhaps.

Another potential reason for the rejection might be that there are Irish voters beginning to think through (either instinctively or intentionally) some of the reasoning once presciently offered by their fellow Irishman, C.S. Lewis. Lewis was not a major contender in political controversies, but he was famously wary of those who would try to treat human beings as endlessly malleable. It may be that Irish voters, like a seemingly growing bloc of citizens in democratic nations, are becoming wary of being pushed into a variety of molds that fit the interests of political and social elites. They may be cautious about further pushing envelopes and diminishing the distinctives of sex and gender.

Is it possible that there is a seedling of concern over losing some of the real joys of man, woman, and family that are embedded in the traditional understanding? If so, then let that seedling sprout into green shoots that indicate new life. Perhaps we can recover our understanding of the good that sustained many of our durable sensibilities.