Sir, – With the Referendum Commission material going live this week, I was wondering in relation to the same-sex marriage referendum why marriage is being confined to two people? All of the arguments used to advocate same-sex marriage could equally be used (and probably will) to defend polygamy, polyamory, etc. I fear this will be the next step on the liberal agenda which will ultimately baulk at monogamy. After all, if more than two people want to get together and marry, surely it would be an offence against equality to deny them?
Sure, we’re frequently redefining marriage so why not go the next step?
And as for parenting concerns, surely the more parent figures the better? Why stop at two? And it would certainly be discriminatory to insist that one of the three or four be of the opposite sex to the others.
Stop, you might say, there’s no demand for this. Well there are examples of such moves abroad already, and anyway, if we serve the god of equality slavishly, it shouldn’t matter how small the minority.
Shouldn’t we, after all, be nice to the polygamists and polyamorists? After all, some religions tolerate it.
Actually, no, I think it’s time to draw the line, defend gener-balanced marriage and vote No on May 22nd. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN O’REGAN,
Arklow,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – The words of our former president stand in stark and refreshing contrast to the pronouncements of the Catholic hierarchy and its proxies ("Mary McAleese calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum", April 13th).
It is particularly encouraging to hear comments from Mrs McAleese that are so closely aligned to the majority of Irish Catholics. That aside, her comments touch upon one of the difficult truths that has yet to receive a reasonable hearing in this campaign – equality has never cost a life.
An acceptance by the Irish people that the relationships of gay men and women are equal to those of straight couples will send a message to all gay people, regardless of age, that they are seen by this State and its citizens to be of unquestioned value.
Receiving a message like this can do so much to positively scaffold the emotional health of all LGBT people but particularity those that are of a younger age where the impact of lack of acceptance causes most damage. I entered my teenage years during the national discussion on decriminalisation of homosexuality. It was a time when, as a gay person, you were constantly reminded by some of your lack of worth. I suffered the consequences of the resultant repression then. Now, we have a wider set of voices, including that of Mrs McAleese, that are expressing compassion and acceptance in an exceptionally genuine way and I hope this is the voice that Irish youth hears in the midst of and beyond this campaign. – Is mise,
PIO FENTON,
Cork.
Sir, – Traditionally, the justification for state involvement in the marriage process has been to promote the ideal kind of family. On this basis, it has given legal and financial preference to married people over single people. Whether or not this argument is wrong, at least it is a consistent one.
If marriage is not about promoting certain types of families over others and is not related to the public good then the state should have no involvement in it. Instead this practice should be relegated to the private proceedings of social and religious organisations, which are clearly very sentimental about it.
It is unfair that single people should subsidise married people who tend to be wealthier and happier in life simply because they are lucky enough to find someone they wish to spend the rest of their lives with. – Yours, etc,
EOIN FLAHERTY,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – As the referendum debate has unfolded, advocates of same-sex marriage have emphasised values such as equality, love, human rights, inclusivity, and respect for diversity. What is becoming increasingly obvious, however, is that these “values” are mere slogans which many advocates of same-sex marriage do not appear to genuinely understand.
Those advocating the redefinition of marriage do not appear to recognise any right of conscientious non-participation in same-sex ceremonies for citizens.
The intimidation of businesses and individuals through legal actions and boycotting in other countries receives overt or tacit approval. The unwillingness to endorse same-sex relationships is now routinely and uncritically (and wrongly) equated with racism.
In a remarkably short space of time the approval of same-sex relationships has become the sine qua non of genuine humanity. The degree to which the State appears to be officially adopting the new "liberal" ideological orthodoxy is alarming. In the winter 2009 edition of the Equality Authority publication Equality News, Marriage Equality accused the Catholic Church and the Iona Institute of giving "credence to homophobia" and seeking "to keep the members of their own church and the wider public fearful and hateful".
If a State organisation considers this type of rhetoric suitable for publication in its official journal, it is clear that the same-sex movement can rely on the State to support its ultimate aim of silencing all dissenting opinions regarding the moral validity of same-sex relationships.
A Council of Europe report published in January 2015 entitled Tackling Intolerance and Discrimination in Europe highlights the discrimination being experienced by Christians in Europe and the failure of states to vindicate fundamental rights of conscience and freedom of expression and religion.
It encourages states to provide reasonable accommodation for conscientious objections in areas such as same-sex marriage.
Unfortunately, where the same-sex agenda has gained political support, intolerance and discrimination directed towards believers has intensified.
If the referendum is passed, people of religious conviction can expect to face increasing pressures, as the State ramps up efforts to drive from the public square any who would have the temerity to dissent from the new orthodoxy and stubbornly retain and express “repressive” and “hateful” notions of the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage and Christian sexual ethics.
The reformation of education will probably be the next major target in the drive to relativise heterosexual marriage, as is happening in the UK and other countries.
If this referendum were genuinely about love, tolerance and inclusivity, one might expect just a little for those who do not share the liberal vision of sexuality and marriage.
It would be supremely ironic, if on the eve of the centenary of 1916, we as a nation endorse the aspirations of those who evidently have little or no respect for conscience and whose aim is to curtail the expression of basic Christian morality and sexual ethics, ushering in a new era of penal law. – Yours, etc,
IAN KENNEDY,
Tramore,
Co Waterford.