Normally it isn't a question of public opinion, but the thing is whenever there is any kind of change to the Irish constitution, it has to go to a referendum.
Now, I personally dislike the constitution. It's full of quite a lot of unnecessary religious crap, but hey, it's not entirely surprising considering Ireland is a pillar of Catholicism and all. That aside, there's room for improvement in a few areas. The bit in question that would have to be changed in this case is as follows:
quote:
The Family
Article 41
1. 1 The State 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.
2 The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1 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.
2 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.
3. 1 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.
2 A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.
3 No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.
See? The bit in bold would have to be changed because by definition it excludes any form of family other than the usual man, woman, kids version - because the State is only recognising and protecting families based on marraige.
If they changed "marraige" to "marraige or civil union", and changed the stuff about the woman to "parent who chooses to stay at home", then gay marraiges and single parents are included.