Sir, – In arguing against marriage equality, Patrick Treacy seems to be following the doctrine of "separate but equal". ("Be courageous and vote No to marriage referendum", Opinion & Analysis, March 3rd). Such a deeply flawed approach to minority rights did not work in other contexts and does not work in this one either. Instead, all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve equal access to the institution of civil marriage, and Ireland should join the growing number of countries that have embraced this human rights reform.
While efforts to eradicate prejudice and non-acceptance from our society must and will continue, a Yes vote in the marriage equality referendum will send a powerful signal that LGBT people are full and equal citizens in this republic of ours. – Yours, etc,
ADAM LONG,
Ballina-Killaloe,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – At a public meeting in Waterford on Monday last, I asked Minister of State for Equality Aodhán Ó Riordáin to give serious consideration to the inclusion of a conscience clause in the Equal Status Act, which allows for the imposition of a fine of up to €25,000 and/or a two-year prison term. In other jurisdictions, ordinary citizens have been criminalised and subject to draconian sanctions for acting in accordance with conscience. Barronelle Stutzman, a grandmother and florist from Washington, is currently facing the loss of her family business, her livelihood, her life savings, and her home, because of her Christian understanding of marriage. If the forthcoming referendum were passed, the same would undoubtedly happen here. Unfortunately, the Minister did not indicate any willingness to consider a conscience clause, despite his awareness of these problems.
We are seeing in this country the growth of an ugly form of secular fundamentalism which is determined to restrict moral and spiritual conviction to the strictly private domain. A conscience clause is perceived by some as an accommodation of prejudice. In reality, it would simply provide citizens with the choice to go about their lives and business freely in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Issues around freedom of conscience and free speech need to form part of the debate regarding same-sex marriage because the referendum has major implications for both. – Yours, etc,
IAN KENNEDY,
Tramore,
Co Waterford.
Sir, – Reading Patrick Treacy’s comments, I was reminded of the journalist Andrew Sullivan who spoke of the “sense of asphyxiation you feel when someone defines you without your consent”.
Much of the commentary against marriage rights for same-sex couples, either implicitly or explicitly, defines gay and lesbian couples without their consent – telling them that their relationship is second class, their desire for commitment is not worthy of State recognition and support, that their love is an inferior thing; that somehow, by loving, they will damage the very essence of marriage.
As someone who has spent time listening to Catholic gay and lesbian people in permanent, monogamous relationships as part of qualitative academic research into the topic, I would heartily recommend others do otherwise – to listen, that is. It is easy to preach, to define others according to our presuppositions and draw conclusions that just might not be valid. Listening in order to learn is an altogether more fruitful activity. I found it to be a graced and humbling experience. And, strangely enough, my marriage of 35 years hasn’t suddenly crumbled with the shock of that revelation. – Yours, etc,
ANGELA HANLEY,
Athlone,
Co Westmeath.