Sir, – Brian Dineen (March 18th) writes, "Outdated notions that sharply delineate parental responsibilities in a gendered fashion are not a sound basis for forming policy". If gender is not a consideration in evaluating parental abilities and roles, then what is? You cannot ignore the impact female mothers and male fathers have in rearing a child, no matter how much you may wish to, in order to support the argument that same-sex couples are the "same" as opposite-sex couples in this regard. – Yours, etc,
CHRIS RYAN,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – Brian Dineen contends that the principle of granting custody of a child “of tender years” to the mother will not be exclusively undermined by a Yes result in the forthcoming marriage referendum.
This point is based on a 1999 High Court decision, which has influenced court rulings since then, but it is not written into law. What is on the statute books, however, is the automatic granting of guardianship of children born out of wedlock to the mother (Guardianship of Infants Act 1964), for example. There might just be something special about the relationship of a mother to her young children. – Is mise,
MARK C HICKEY.
Dublin 4.
Sir, – You report Richard Boyd Barrett (Oireachtas Report, March 12th) as saying that those who might vote Yes in the forthcoming marriage referendum are "dinosaurs who should fold up their tent and get off the stage". If he or his ilk ever have a say in what happens in this country then a significant proportion of the working population might have to do just that. – Yours, etc,
TOM GREALY,
Galway.
Sir, – My near-namesake Paddy Monaghan (March 11th) says he respects "the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships protected in law" but lists numerous objections to same-sex marriage founded on his religious views. In support of this he refers to the views of Pope Francis, Irish Catholic bishops, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church and the "Judeo Christian faith". He goes on to say "freedom of conscience regarding religious beliefs is a basic human right".
Similarly, those who are comfortable with the fact that the Irish primary school system is almost entirely run by the Catholic Church defend this on the basis of the need to preserve “ethos” – that is, the right to freedom of conscience at an institutional level. The same goes for their defence of the unique right of schools to utilise the provisions of the Equality Act to discriminate against children of other religions and none in their admission policies. The rights of parents usually get a mention too but, curiously, only those of the dominant faith.
The response in both cases should be identical. First, in a democracy nobody can, nor should, stop another person from holding personal religious views and practising a faith. Second, not all rights are equal – the right to personal religious views should not supersede the rights of other people to marry or access education. Finally, while everyone has the right to freedom of conscience regarding religious beliefs, they should not expect the rest of society to dance to the same tune. – Yours, etc,
PADDY MONAHAN,
Dublin 5.
Sir, – David Thunder (March 20th) acknowledges there are two sets of "deep and passionately held" convictions at play in the marriage equality debate. He believes that whatever the outcome of the referendum, one of these sets of convictions will prevail over the other, and be "imposed" by the state on all.
This is not the case. Should the referendum pass, both of these sets of convictions will be accommodated, as anyone who feels morally or religiously prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex will remain free not to do so. However, in the event of the referendum failing, those who consider themselves under no such restrictions will be denied similar freedom to act in accordance with their conscience. The only result that allows each citizen to decide for themselves, and to act accordingly, is Yes. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN WALL
Dublin 2.