Sir, – The Iona Institute's legal opinion concludes it would probably be unconstitutional for there to be discriminatory treatment of any kind as between opposite-sex and same-sex married couples in respect of adoption, fostering, assisted human reproduction and surrogacy ("Iona Institute claims referendum could change adoption laws", May 5th).
In the course of an elaborate 150-page opinion, the authors give no substantive consideration to Article 42A.4.1°, which requires “in the resolution of all proceedings. . . concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration”.
The failure even to consider Article 42A.4.1° is bizarre. Iona had asked their lawyers whether it would be unconstitutional in the application of any law to give effect to more favourable treatment to an opposite-sex married couple. The authors of the opinion elected not to address this question.
However, the executive summary glosses over this critical omission, presenting the opinion as relating to “any discriminatory treatment of any kind”. On its website, Iona amplifies things further, claiming that any ability to lawfully distinguish between same sex and opposite sex couples will be severely or wholly undermined.
But an opinion that gives no consideration to Article 42A.4.1° cannot support such a sweeping conclusion. This is critical. Adoption decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis.
To limit one’s focus to legislation misses half the picture. To present that partial account as the full picture impedes public understanding of the important issues at stake in this referendum. – Yours, etc,
Prof ORAN DOYLE,
School of Law,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.
A chara, – Family structures are an important factor in the wellbeing of children. To say that being raised by two married biological parents is an ideal is not to denigrate single parents, but simply to say that they face additional difficulties in raising their children, just as raising the point that children raised in poor economic circumstances face additional difficulties does not denigrate parents in poor financial circumstances.
This is why Michael Farrell's comparison with apartheid (May 7th) is false. The skin colour of parents does not affect a child's upbringing. Family structure does, and given that Article 41 of our Constitution explicitly ties marriage to the family, family structures are pertinent to this debate. Civil marriage should not be about legislating for adult ideals of relationships, but rather for the ideal circumstances in which to raise children. – Is mise,
RYAN CONNOLLY,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – One of the deep ironies of this debate concerns the right and freedom of persons to change. What I see as ironic is the attitude from the Yes side that says, in effect, “This is the way I am (or that people are); so, I am not open to any thoughts that I (or they) might be able to change – and you are the ones who need to change!”
Personally I find this resistance to change more ideologically driven than related to the simple reality that, were it not for the monolithic, conditioning culture that reinforces stereotypical patterns of behaviour and normalises them in people’s minds, there would be plenty of people who would prefer more lifestyle options. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL AUSTIN,
Gorey, Co Wexford.
A chara, – Disgusting. Shameful. Wrong. Three words that, as a Yes canvasser, I have had said to me recently on Dublin doorsteps.
So many householders I have met feel it is indeed disgusting, shameful and wrong that groups of ordinary citizens like myself have to walk the streets, night after night, begging our neighbours to grant us simple equality. I am therefore hopeful that the kind and generous people of Ireland will vote Yes when we spread our dreams under their feet on May 22nd. – Is mise,
KAREN FAGAN,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Archbishop Diarmuid Martin claims religious belief was being placed, by some, at the level of belief in leprechauns ("Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to vote No in referendum", May 6th). In saying so, he continues in the same vein as his namesake, Archbishop Eamon Martin, who has recently suggested that Catholics are reluctant to express a view on same-sex marriage for fear of appearing homophobic. The overall view seems to be that Catholics are being marginalised.
In the 2011 census, 84 per cent of respondents identified themselves as being Catholic. The Catholic Church is the patron of 90 per cent of primary schools.
Is the Catholic Church a put-upon minority or a powerful majority? It surely cannot be both. – Yours, etc,
NEIL CONDON,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – I write not only as a parent and grandparent, but also as someone who has been close to a one-parent family, and to the gay community, and consider myself liberal rather than religious, in supporting freedom to divorce, for abortion in limited circumstances, and full and equal rights for the LGBT community.
Many current family situations exist where children – who through whatever unfortunate contingency lack or have lost one or both parents – are wonderfully parented in either adoptive families, by single parents or relatives or by same-sex couples.
However that is hardly an argument for intentionally structuring such an unfortunate parental deficit into family inception. If we put the wellbeing of future children as a priority over the understandable desires of adults to become parents, we would recognise that a child’s clear sense of identity and family origins is a significant factor contributing to their emotional wellbeing, as is also the emotional bonding between mother and baby following birth.
The rise in donor-assisted human reproduction and surrogacy, which deliberately splits the child’s connection to either its genetic parent or its birth mother, or both, is hardly in the best interest of the child’s future emotional security. This would apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples; though gay couples would only be able to found a family through these methods, as also some infertile heterosexual married couples. Should we have clarified our position on assisted human reproduction and surrogacy first before having a referendum on same-sex marriage? – Yours, etc,
INGRID MASTERSON,
Dublin 14.
Sir,– I refer to Dr Carol Coulter's article ("Why surrogacy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage", Opinion & Analysis, April 27th) and Alan Shatter's interview ("Shatter claims No campaign is using children as weapons", May 4th).
I agree that we are not being asked to vote on surrogacy. However, their assertion that surrogacy is irrelevant to same-sex marriage is misleading. If the referendum passes, same-sex married individuals, like their opposite-sex counterparts, will have a constitutional right to procreate. Our laws have yet to determine the meaning and extent of this right, but it would seem to indicate a right to have genetically related children.
For same-sex married couples, this can only be achieved through reproductive technologies and surrogacy. Hence, the likelihood is that a Yes vote on May 22nd will have implications for surrogacy.
In countries where same-sex marriage has been introduced, there is an increase in demand for surrogacy by same-sex couples. The study on which Dr Coulter relied noted this fact. – Yours, etc,
HELENA SMITH, PhD,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Over the years, we have had our fair share of complicated referendums discussing, among other things, the minutiae of EU treaties where facts reign. But in this case, we have been let off the hook with a relatively simple proposition. We are simply being asked whether gay people should be allowed to marry. In support, there is no evidence that marriage equality damages broader society, as over 14 countries and many US states now have marriage equality. Furthermore, the only effect of marriage equality in Ireland will be that gay people will be able to strengthen legally their relationships and get married in front of their friends, families and loved ones.
I respectfully suggest that we don’t have to overthink in the case of this referendum and do not mistake the impassioned entreaties by gay people on behalf of their relationships as simply an attempt to pull heartstrings. In the final analysis, these relationships are the only facts in this debate. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARK McCARRON,
New York.