Sir, – Dr Seán Ó Conaill and Dr Conor O'Mahony (February 28th) offer a translation of the Irish text of the proposed same-sex marriage amendment which, but for one word, agrees in substance with that on which my earlier article was based ("Referendum wording is threat to Constitution", Opinion and Analysis, February 20th). They suggest "Two persons, whether they be men or women, may contract in relation to marriage in accordance with law".
By interposing the word “persons” after “two”, however, they subtly alter the meaning of the Irish text, which simply says “beirt”. They cite the precedent of Article 28.7.2 to justify this. In that article “beirt acu” refers to two members of Government. In Article 41.3.2.(iii), “leis an mbeirt acu” refers to two spouses. In neither case does “beirt” allow or justify the insertion of the word “persons” in the translation.
The effect of this sleight of hand is that the word “they” in their translation refers to “persons”, not to the couple (“beirt”) as in the Irish version. The result is that, whereas the text actually says that the couple “beirt” may be men or women (ie gay or lesbian), their erroneous translation says that “persons” can be men or women. The latter proposition is, of course, true but it is not what the Irish text actually provides. By resorting to this device and admitting that even that is ambiguous, they effectively concede that the literal translation is entirely against them.
Their main complaint is that “reading the Irish text is more than an exercise in translation; it is an exercise in constitutional interpretation. Mr Arnold engaged in the former, but ignored the established rules governing the latter.”
I believe that I am fully justified in so doing. The words in question are not part of the Constitution. They are to be scrutinised and interpreted as a proposal to amend the Constitution, not as though they already formed part of it.
I agree with Rev Burke (February 28th) who says “To discover an error after a law is passed is unfortunate, but to realise it in advance and refuse to correct it is absurd.” – Yours, etc,
BRUCE ARNOLD,
Glenageary, Co Dublin.
Sir, – The legal community is bemused by Bruce Arnold’s claims about the effect of the Irish text of the proposed constitutional amendment. And Dr Ó Seán Conaill and Dr Conor O’Mahony agree (February 28th), though they say that “no one is claiming that the Irish text is perfect”. Not to worry, it appears. The “legal” translation of the text is perfect, and the Supreme Court, if invoked, will oblige and back it all the way.
But why fight about this? The Irish text – or indeed the English text – isn’t written in stone, yet. Why not make the question we have to vote on in May absolutely unambiguous and remove any of those “non-legal” doubts? And away with consistency and legal translations. The electorate deserves a lot more certainty than it has been getting up to now. – Yours, etc,
PADDY TERRY,
Clonskeagh,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Language is important; both versions of the referendum will be part of one proposition. Voters should not be presented with the indignity of voting on an internally contradictory proposal to change our Constitution. – Yours, etc,
DONAL NUNAN,
Mallow,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Ivana Bacik holds that there's no rational basis for allowing same-sex couples to marry ("No rational basis to deny gay couples right to marry", Opinion & Analysis, February 27th), but she then fails to give a definition of marriage which distinguishes it from any other long-term, committed, loving relationship. She trots out the attributes of marriage by saying "we all seek the same things that marriage represents: love, companionship, intimacy, mutual trust and responsibility". Don't these attributes also flow from friendships and family relationships that are not recognised as marriages ? If marriage is necessarily not about children, then why does Ms Bacik support consanguinity laws, as alluded to in her article?
It’s understandable that she has this confusion, because when you define anything, you necessarily exclude what it is not. And if you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, then you are undermining it out of existence. Societies have recognised marriage as the union of a man and a woman because this relationship alone has the intrinsic potential to procreate life. Not all marriages result in children, of course, but every child has a mother and father and marriage serves to uphold the integrity of that relationship, so that children are raised by their own mum and dad. That’s diversity and equality where they matter most. – Yours, etc,
MARK C HICKEY,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.