Letters to the Editor: Wording is flawed — a no vote is the safest option

One reader says that the proposed wording in the 'family' referendum on March 8 would call into question why anyone should get married if they already have a 'durable relationship'

On March 8, voters will choose whether or not to adopt changes to the Constitution for both the 'family' and 'care' referendums.

After careful consideration of the proposed constitutional amendments, I have concluded that a no vote is the safest option in both cases.

In the case of the family amendment, it is impossible not to conclude that the proposal is to accord the same constitutional status to "other durable relationships" as is at present accorded only to marriage. This begs the question: Why should anyone get married if they already have what they consider to be a durable relationship?