Sir, – Patsy McGarry ("Presbyterian Church urges No in marriage equality referendum", April 22nd), in commenting on the church's comments in advance of the referendum on marriage equality, includes the Methodist Church in Ireland among those churches which are calling for a No vote.
While in its short statement the Methodist Church has reiterated its understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman, it has not sought to advise people on how they should vote. Our statement concludes with the words, “We encourage all to listen respectfully to each other in the church and society, and in doing so, to seek the will of God and the good of society.”
Within Methodism, as within the community at large, we respect that fact that there will be those who have differing views about how the good of society and the will of God may be realised. – Yours, etc,
Rev DONALD KER,
Secretary,
Methodist Church
in Ireland,
Belfast.
Sir, – I have decided that I will vote Yes to allow same-sex marriage, and to reduce the age at which one can become president on May 22nd. However, I have not yet decided how I will vote in the surrogacy referendum, or the adoption of children by same-sex couples referendum, or the “sure can’t they just be happy with civil partnerships?” referendum. I am grateful to the group Mothers and Fathers Matter for erecting posters informing me of the existence of these additional referendums, but I am puzzled as to why it has not yet decided to put up a single poster which addresses the issue of civil marriage equality, given that it is supposed to be its primary concern. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN CAREY,
Clonmel, Co Tipperary.
Sir, – It is a first for me to write to a Dublin-based newspaper, of which yours is the leader in the field for letters.
I write because of the impending referendum on marriage, only to remind my relations in the Republic that right and wrong isn’t determined by a majority of humans, but by the majority of one – that one being the creator, who by the word of God given to us in the Holy Bible speaks clearly on the matter.
In the Republic of Ireland you are blessed in getting a referendum on this matter, and not just leaving this matter to the professional political system, and the mood of the chattering classes.
So I urge you and all your readers to take stock before you vote and ask “Who is on the Lord’s side?” – Yours, etc,
WILLIAM GEORGE,
Armagh.
Sir, – I took Jennifer Mooney Galwolie's advice (April 23rd) and read Article 41 of the Constitution. Yes, the State recognises the family as the "natural, primary and fundamental unit of society" and the State pledges to "guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded".
Nowhere does is say, though, that marriage is between a man and woman or indeed that it is between members of the same sex. The only time children are mentioned in Article 41 is in the 15th amendment where a court may grant a dissolution of marriage. Article 41 also says that “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. Furthermore it says “the State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.
As a single parent, it would seem to me that there is a lot of malarkey in Article 41 and it high time that this section in our Constitution was completely revised and updated. – Yours, etc,
TOM McELLIGOTT,
Listowel,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – Alison Elliot (April 21st) is correct in saying that irrespective of whether the referendum is carried or not, there will be children without mothers. It's refreshing to find someone on the Yes side addressing the issue of the welfare of children in the debate.
But she is overlooking the fact that a successful Yes will copper-fasten some sections of the Child and Family Relationships Bill. These latter ensure that some children on foot of a successful Yes will be produced with the explicit purpose of being deprived of either a father or a mother. This has to be a justifiable significant cause of concern for many in terms of the moral integrity of the culture.
She is also correct in saying that the “discussion should be on what the referendum is about”. Equality is a very important issue in a democracy. But it is inseparable from the issue of rights. In its new form, Article 41 impacts negatively on the rights of children, because it priorities the desires of adults over the rights of children. Marriage is about families and families are about children. So the issue of children is at the core of the debate and has to be discussed. – Yours, etc,
NEIL BRAY,
Cappamore, Co Limerick.
Sir, – Fr Gregory O'Brien's letter (April 23rd), in response to Dr Linda Hogan's article ("Same-gender marriage can fit with Christianity", Rite and Reason, April 21st), uses antiquated and potentially damaging gender stereotypes as a reason for opposing same-sex marriage
Fr O’Brien cites the “complementarity of the sexes” as a “natural law” which supports the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. To what complementarity is he referring? Can two people of the same sex not complement each other? No, because the “complementarity” of which Fr O’Brien writes, but upon which he (and the rest of the No campaign) are unwilling to elaborate, is based on traditional and sexist gender roles.
The implicit sexism which permeates the language employed by the No campaign needs to addressed and exposed for what it is – outdated. – Yours, etc,
WILL DUNLEAVY,
Rathgar, Dublin 14.