Sir, – I wonder if you would be good enough to assist me. A Martian acquaintance wrote to me recently to ask if I could confirm the existence of a little country here on planet Earth where the understandings about parenthood and family are a bit confusing. It seems that, in this country, there are well-funded religious pressure groups that contend that a pregnancy brought about by rape or incest should be brought to full term. But a pregnancy brought about by two deeply loving and committed parents who happen to be gay is morally indefensible and must be voted against in a forthcoming referendum about marriage equality. Apparently, in this country, they’re about to mark the centenary of their founding revolution, and they waffle on and on, as they’ve been doing for almost a hundred years now, about “cherishing all the children of the nation equally”. But some of their children are more equal than others, it would appear.
I’ve been consulting Google Maps but I can’t seem to find this country, and I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist. I wonder was it in fact contrived as a satirical masterstroke by Jonathan Swift or Flann O’Brien? Truth is stranger than fiction, they tell me. But then, fiction has to make sense. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH O’CONNOR,
McCourt Professor,
School of Culture
and Communication,
University of Limerick.
Sir, – Regarding Una Mullally's thoroughly moving and thought-provoking piece about her current debilitating illness and her determination to continue canvassing for a Yes vote, while one may not always agree with her often trenchant views, nobody could accuse your columnist of not having the courage of her convictions ("It's hard to accept yourself when you country doesn't", Opinion & Analysis, April 27th). I wish her well. – Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey, Co Dublin.
Sir, – I am grateful to Una Mullally for a most poignant, personal and powerful piece. I had been undecided but next month I shall vote Yes for Una. – Yours, etc,
FRANK BYRNE,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – It is somewhat galling to hear advocates of a No vote in the upcoming marriage equality referendum complain about feeling bullied and silenced.
Until the recent past LGBT people in Ireland found themselves in a situation where they were silenced and they were bullied not because of what they believed, but because of who they were. Much of this was perpetrated by reference to the same religious beliefs and organisations now used by many No advocates to justify their position.
The position, however, has not turned because LGBT people in Ireland are seeking to bully or silence anyone. They simply wish to live their lives in Ireland as equal citizens. Surely there is no good reason to stop them.
Having recently witnessed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Scotland, I can assure you there has been no negative outcome. The same can be said for every country around the world where same-sex marriage is legal.
Following the debate from overseas it has been heartening in the extreme to see so many young people of voting age and below being called to action in support of the quest for equality for themselves, their family and their friends. Moreover, the mature manner in which they have conducted themselves is admirable and makes me proud to say I am from Ireland. Whether the referendum passes or not, it is a real sign that Ireland has become a better and more tolerant society, and that cannot be undone. – Yours, etc,
ALAN KENNEDY,
Leeds.
Sir, – Jeff Walsh (April 22nd) draws attention to the fact that our Constitution does not directly state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It's worth pointing out that when our Constitution was written, in 1937, the concept of same-sex marriage as understood today was unknown in even the most socially radical jurisdictions of the time, such as the Soviet Union and the republican zone of Spain during the Spanish civil war. Therefore, it simply would not have occurred to the authors of our Constitution that marriage would be other than between a man and a woman. This, undoubtedly, accounts for the omission mentioned by Mr Walsh. – Yours, etc,
HUGH GIBNEY,
Athbay, Co Meath.
Sir, – There seems to be an assumption running through the discussion that all Christian churches are opposed to same-sex marriages. This is not so. I had the pleasure of attending such a marriage in the United States last July. It was conducted by a minister of the Episcopalian church with a liturgy, approved by the Episcopalian bishops, that did not differ greatly from the liturgy for an opposite-sex marriage. It was a happy and joyous occasion for the two men involved and for their families and friends. Unlike their brethren in Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in the US has recently approved same-sex marriages and, of course, the Unitarian Church has long endorsed such marriages. – Yours, etc,
JOHN KILCULLEN,
Lucan, Co Dublin.
Sir, – I congratulate Will Dunleavy (April 25th) for coming to the crux of the same-sex marriage debate when so many contributions have skirted around it. He complains about the use of "antiquated and potentially damaging gender stereotypes" as a reason for opposing same-sex marriage, observes that supporters of traditional marriage "are unwilling to elaborate" on the complementarity of the sexes upon which they base so much of their argument, and denounces "traditional and sexist gender roles".
I believe men and women are fundamentally different, and that they bring different gifts and temperaments to marriage, parenting, and social life in general. I believe this complementarity needs to be cherished and respected. I vehemently reject the decades of propaganda that have tried to convince us that gender roles are antiquated, socially constructed, repressive and so forth.
Mr Dunleavy demands that a proponent of this belief elaborate upon it. He is asking a lot, since it is a vast difference, and every alleged element of complementarity will be met with folded arms and the stubborn demand to “prove it”. But let everybody answer this question honestly – do we not every single day, in conversation and journalism and humour and joke-telling and social life and marketing and every other human activity, acknowledge this deep-seated difference and complementarity?
When it comes to parenting and marriage, why do the words “motherly” and “fatherly”, or “mother figure” and “father figure”, have such different undertones? Is it really a cultural accident that we associate mothers more with tenderness and intimacy and reassurance, while we associate fathers more with authority and discipline and protection?
Nobody really doubts the important differences between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. They are not socially constructed; they are not, in essence, repressive or “damaging”; they are rooted in reality and they should be cherished and protected. This is why I will be voting No. – Yours, etc,
MAOLSHEACHLANN
Ó CEALLAIGH,
Dublin 11.
Sir, – When I first saw the No posters, I thought to myself “that’s a bit ridiculous”, but as more posters appeared, I began to realise that they were not ridiculous, but downright disrespectful to single parents. “Surrogacy? She needs a mother for life, not just for nine months”; and “A child needs a mother AND a father” are arguments that infuriate me.
My mother died when I was six years old, my sister was 11, and my brother three. Going by the logic of the posters, the three of us should have been taken from our father and put into the care of a two-parent family. Our lives, already wrought with grief, would have been torn apart even more.
I watched my father raise three children. He wiped away our tears of grief along with his own. For the past 13 years my father has strived to give us the best life he could as a single parent and I am so proud of him.
To the people who believe that “she” needs a mother for life and not just nine months, and to the people who think that a child needs a mother and a father, think again. My father has given me pride, confidence and love every single day, and so I can only be happy for a child with two fathers who will do the same. – Yours, etc,
SARAH BAILEY,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – I have yet to hear an argument against the marriage referendum that is not rooted in fallacy, sentimentalism, anecdotalism, red herrings or a seemingly wilful misinterpretation of human rights law. I won’t hold my breath. – Yours, etc,
WILSON JOYCE,
Cambridge.