Sir, – Fr Iggy O'Donovan urges that "it is possible to have deep and passionately held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them and may have opposite convictions which are equally deep and passionately held" ("When we vote in referendums we legislate for all citizens not just members of a church", Rite & Reason, March 10th). He is absolutely right that one can have "deep and passionately held convictions" without seeking to enforce them through the apparatus of the State. For example, I passionately believe that it is wrong to lie to a friend, yet I believe it would be foolish and counter-productive to seek to have this conviction enforced through the civil or criminal law.
However, to use this truism as a basis for advocating same-sex marriage is highly disingenuous. No matter which side wins the debate about the proposed constitutional amendment, one set of “deep and passionately held” convictions about how our society should be organised and how marriage in particular should be conceived of in the public square will prevail over the other, and be “imposed” by the state. It would be either naive or outright dishonest to suggest otherwise. – Yours, etc,
DAVID THUNDER,
Pamplona,
Spain.
Sir, – Regarding the selection of letters on same-sex marriage, I detect a bias towards the Yes side. I may be totally mistaken, and I do not expect for this letter to be published either. – Yours, etc,
KONRAD DECHANT,
Dublin 7.