This comes after a couple of shitty constitutional referendums failed.
One tried to expand the definition of “family”, but had vague wording. (Bold is what was to be added.)
The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, 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.
With absolutely no definition of what a “durable relationship” is.
It also wanted to remove the below bolded text, which would have been a fine change in its own.
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.
The other tried to make a section regarding the importance of domestic labor gender neutral, but in doing so watered it down from something that otherwise sounds decent to something incredibly vague.
This is the original:
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.
And this was the proposal:
The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.
The original seems to straightforwardly be saying “a family shouldn’t require dual income streams to the detriment of the home”, which sounds pretty good to me, the only problem of course is that is prescribes the role of domestic labor to women. They literally could have just changed “woman” and “mother” to “person” and “parent”. Instead they rewrote it as some vague meaningless bullshit.