Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar conceded defeat Saturday as two constitutional amendments he supported that would have broadened the definition of family and removed language about a woman害羞草研究所檚 role at home were headed toward rejection in early vote tallies.

Varadkar, who pushed the vote to enshrine gender equality in the constitution by removing 害羞草研究所渧ery old-fashioned language害羞草研究所� and trying to recognize the realities of modern family life, said it was clear the amendments were 害羞草研究所渄efeated comprehensively on a respectable turnout.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所淚t was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote 害羞草研究所榶es害羞草研究所� and we clearly failed to do so,害羞草研究所� Varadkar said.

Opponents argued that the wording of the changes was poorly thought out 害羞草研究所� an argument that appeared to have gained traction in the final days of the campaign. Voters said they were confused by the questions and others said they feared changes would lead to unintended consequences.

The election was viewed as part of Ireland害羞草研究所檚 evolution from a conservative, overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country in which divorce and abortion were illegal, to an increasingly diverse and socially liberal society. The proportion of residents who are Catholic fell from 94.9% in 1961 to 69% in 2022, according to the Central Statistics Office.

The social transformation has been reflected in a series of changes to Ireland害羞草研究所檚 Constitution, which dates from 1937, though the country was not formally known as the Republic of Ireland until 1949. Irish voters legalized divorce in a 1995 referendum, backed same-sex marriage in a 2015 vote and repealed a ban on abortions in 2018.

The first question dealt with a part of the constitution that pledges to protect the family as the primary unit of society. Voters were asked to remove a reference to marriage as the basis 害羞草研究所渙n which the family is founded害羞草研究所� and replace it with a clause that said families can be founded 害羞草研究所渙n marriage or on other durable relationships.害羞草研究所� If passed, it would have been the constitution害羞草研究所檚 39th amendment.

A proposed 40th amendment would have removed a reference that a woman害羞草研究所檚 place in the home offered a common good that could not be provided by the state and delete a statement that said mothers shouldn害羞草研究所檛 be obligated to work out of economic necessity if it would neglect their duties at home. It would have added a clause saying the state will strive to support 害羞草研究所渢he provision of care by members of a family to one another.害羞草研究所�

The debate was less charged than the arguments over abortion and gay marriage. Ireland害羞草研究所檚 main political parties all supported the changes, including centrist government coalition partners Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and the biggest opposition party, Sinn Fein.

One political party that called for 害羞草研究所渘o害羞草研究所� votes was Aont煤, a traditionalist group that split from Sinn Fein over the larger party害羞草研究所檚 backing for legal abortion. Aont煤 leader Peadar T贸ib铆n said the government害羞草研究所檚 wording was so vague it will lead to legal wrangles and most people 害羞草研究所渄o not know what the meaning of a durable relationship is.害羞草研究所�

The Free Legal Advice Centers, a legal charity, expressed concern the change to the section on care contained 害羞草研究所渉armful stereotypes such as the concept that the provision of care 害羞草研究所� is the private responsibility of unpaid family members without any guarantee of state support.害羞草研究所�

Some disability rights campaigners argued the emphasis on care treats disabled people as a burden, rather than as individuals with rights that should be guaranteed by the state.

Opinion polls had suggested support for the 害羞草研究所測es害羞草研究所� side on both votes, but many voters remained undecided as Friday害羞草研究所檚 polling 害羞草研究所� held on International Women害羞草研究所檚 Day 害羞草研究所� neared and some said they found the issue too confusing or too hurried to change the constitution.

害羞草研究所淚 thought it was too rushed,害羞草研究所� said Una Ui Dhuinn, a nurse in Dublin. 害羞草研究所淚 felt we didn害羞草研究所檛 get enough time to think about it and read up on it. So I felt, to be on the safe side, 害羞草研究所榥o, no害羞草研究所� 害羞草研究所� no change.害羞草研究所�

Caoimhe Doyle, a doctoral student, said she voted yes to changing the definition of family but no to the care amendment because 害羞草研究所淚 don害羞草研究所檛 think it was explained very well.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所淭here害羞草研究所檚 a worry there that they害羞草研究所檙e removing the burden on the state to take care of families,害羞草研究所� she said.

Michael Kealy And Brian Melley, The Associated Press