Sir, – I'm on the same side as Noel Whelan in campaigning for a Yes vote, but I find some of his arguments to be archaic at best and reactionary at worst ("What's the difference between civil partnership and marriage?" , Opinion & Analysis, May 1st). Noel's central premise is that "The Constitution protects the rights of married people, but not the rights of people in civil partnerships."
He might have added that there are even fewer rights for those of us in partnerships that do not enjoy the imprimatur of church or state, and who, on principle, have no intention of applying for it. Extending the right to marry to gay people goes some way towards redressing discrimination, but we also need the elimination of laws and practices that discriminate against unmarried couples. No couple should have to get married in order to enjoy equal rights. – Yours, etc,
DOMINIC CARROLL,
Ardfield, Co Cork.
A chara, – Noel Whelan writes, “As a heterosexual man I have the legal right to marry the person I love.” This is not exactly how it is.
To marry under current law a couple must be of the opposite sex, not already married or within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and capable of consent and willing to give it. The law is silent concerning sexuality and love.
If the amendment to change the Constitution is passed, the requirement that one party to a marriage be a man and one a woman will change. But whether they are in love or not will be their own private business and the law will make no inquiries and set no standards. For which fact I am heartily glad, the State being ill-equipped to judge the emotional commitment of any one person to another. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer, Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – I will be voting Yes in the same-sex marriage referendum. Not because of inclusiveness. Not even because of equality. I will be voting Yes to save the Irish red herring from impending extinction.
The profusion of red herrings served up by the No side to date has been such that one worries that the national quota has been breached, and this so early in the year. In fact, such reckless overfishing makes one fear for the very survival of the species and the availability of stocks for future referendums.
The Irish red herring has been a staple of referendum campaigns in this country for as long as I can remember and has become part of the very fabric of the national discourse. I call on the Government to have the Irish red herring listed as a protected species under European law with immediate effect. It has been estimated that thousands of jobs will be lost if the Irish red herring is fished to extinction, resulting in emigration, divorce and societal breakdown.
If we do not halt our path down the slippery slope of red herring overfishing, we will be left with no option but to engage in a policy of forced adoption of red herring, assisted red herring reproduction and even red herring surrogacy.
For the good of the Irish red herring and the Irish red herring community, I urge my fellow voters to vote Yes on May 22nd. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – I had the pleasure of attending Dominican College, Muckross Park, Dublin, where I was taught by Breda O’Brien almost every day for six years. During this time, she openly discussed important issues such as abortion and sexuality with us – these issues were raised in a safe classroom environment where we students were invited to think for ourselves and to begin to form our own views.
While Breda openly shared her strong Christian faith with us, a Catholic doctrine was never imposed – on the contrary she encouraged us to challenge her and express alternative ideas to spark debate and discussion about religion and its place in society.
I sincerely hope that the proposed amendment will be passed, because to my mind, it is unacceptable that a person should be deprived of any rights under Irish law because of his or her sexual orientation. However, it is equally unacceptable that a person should suffer abuse and discrimination because he or she has expressed an opinion which is unpopular.
I would therefore like to commend Breda for standing by her views and for sharing them with the Irish public. It is extremely difficult to represent a minority and it requires immense courage to defend these ideas in public. Most of all, though, I would like to thank Breda for showing us by example how to disagree respectfully and to express oneself with dignity – thus showing us that with mutual respect, it is possible to engage in debate while remaining true to oneself.
Democracy will move us forward as the law adapts itself around new family structures – what will hold us back as a society is an intolerance for the beliefs of others and an inability to accept the legitimacy of views which we do not share. So I vote Yes to equality of all people in Ireland, including those who choose to vote No. – Yours, etc,
LENA HENNESSY,
Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
Sir, – Will Dunleavy (April 25) equates the complementarity of the sexes with "antiquated and potentially damaging gender stereotypes" and refers to "the implicit sexism which permeates the language employed by the No campaign". The complementarity of the sexes is not a doctrinal invention of any religion but is the basic self-evident biological fact of nature without which none of us, including Mr Dunleavy and the writer of this letter, would exist. Even The Irish Times wouldn't exist without it. – Yours, etc,
HUGH GIBNEY,
Athboy, Co Meath.
A chara, – It is appalling that a Garda representative body should stick its oar into the turbulent waters of domestic politics (“GRA defends call for members to back same-sex marriage”, April 29th). We have seen only too clearly in Northern Ireland the results of a police force becoming identified with particular segments of the community. An Garda Síochána and its individual members are there to enforce the law of the land, not to attempt to influence the content of our statute books (except, obviously, through their own private vote). – Is mise,
PAUL LINEHAN,
Howth, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Leaving Croke Park on Sunday evening, I noticed the No posters on the Clonliffe and Drumcondra Roads had been damaged and defaced. As I walked to Phibsboro from the Navan Road this afternoon, once again the No posters have been similarly vandalised. How’s that for respect, tolerance, inclusivity and fairness? – Yours, etc,
ANNE HENNIGAN,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – While the marriage equality referendum is primarily about granting equal rights to same-sex couples, it will also further the cause of equality for heterosexual women contemplating marriage. Historically, marriage has always been about the ownership and control of women, who were expected to obey their husbands. When I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, married women suffered numerous forms of discrimination. They were forced to resign from Civil Service jobs if they married and, shockingly, it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. While these laws are now in the past, the discriminatory attitudes behind them still linger. If this referendum is passed, it will mean that the two parties to a marriage will be genuinely equal, and it will be impossible to discriminate against one half of a married couple based on their sex. Under Government proposals, there will be amendments to a number of Acts to replace the words “husband” and “wife” with the word “spouse”. By passing this referendum we can banish the last lingering legal and cultural discrimination against women who are married to men. – Yours, etc,
BRIGID SEALY,
Moyard, Co Galway.
Sir, – Bye-bye wife, hello spouse. – Yours, etc,
SEAMUS O’CALLAGHAN,
Carlow.
Sir, – Given that a fair and pragmatic Irish electorate voted almost 20 years ago to alter the Constitution so as to allow those married couples whose relationships lack the essential features of marriage to dissolve their union via divorce, one hopes that an equally sensible and open-minded electorate will vote Yes on May 22nd to allow those gay and lesbian couples who are in committed marriage-like relationships to have the option of entering into a civil marriage. A compassionate electorate divorced marriage (no pun intended) from Christian doctrine as far back as 1995 in order to acknowledge and provide in law for the reality of marital breakdown in Ireland. The people of Ireland can do so again in 2015 and create a more tolerant nation where the capacity to marry extends beyond biological determinism. – Yours, etc,
Dr BRIAN TOBIN,
School of Law, NUI Galway.