Sir, – The Rev Dr Vincent Twomey ("Sentiment subdued reason in marriage referendum", Opinion & Analysis, June 15th) misses the main reason for the large Yes vote – the continued teaching of the hierarchical church that gay people are "intrinsically disordered". It is always easier to spot the splinter in someone else's eye than the plank in your own. – Yours, etc,
COLM HOLMES,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – “How many of the 40 per cent of those registered to vote (more than 1.2 million) failed to vote because they were intimidated?” asks Vincent Twomey. Few, if any, I would suggest. The turnout (over 60 per cent) was well above the average for a referendum. There will always be a significant percentage of the electorate who will abstain from voting – whether in referendums or in local, general or European elections. I don’t think intimidation played any part in the result of the referendum.– Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
A chara, – “The weight of the establishment drowned out the small, still voice of critical reason trying to assert itself”, writes Vincent Twomey. What about the small, still voice of conscience? – Is mise,
SOLINE HUMBERT,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Prof Twomey argues that sentiment overcame reason in the marriage referendum vote. This is on the basis that people disagreed with his church, and mine, in showing “a new ambivalence about sexual morality”.
This in turn Prof Twomey derives from our rejection of Humanae Vitae. He writes: "Acceptance of contraception leads inexorably in time to the acceptance of same-sex acts and artificial reproduction – and so to same-sex marriages – because it deliberately separates sex from procreation."
However these are not irrational choices. Humanae Vitae's key argument depends on agreement with one interpretation of natural law. This interpretation is not itself justified in the text, but merely stated. It is entirely possible to be rational, and disagree about premises.
Alleging that one's opponents are, or were, irrational is an ad hominem argument, and one with a long history. For example, it was used to oppose women's suffrage. He can certainly do better. He starts his last paragraph with "Reason and courage prevailed". They did indeed, and that is how we got a Yes vote. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY STAINES,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – In the last census 84 per cent of the Irish population claimed they were Roman Catholics. Presumably a vast proportion of these people were among the 62 per cent of the electorate who voted for the marriage referendum. They voted Yes against the explicit instructions of their Catholic bishops. These Catholics were voting in a very conscientious way to allow their lesbian sisters and gay brothers the same right to marriage as that allowed to other citizens, thus explicitly rejecting the arguments of their hierarchical church against gay marriage.
Dr Twomey doesn’t acknowledge the gap that exist between the church and the gay community – a fact recognised by the Catholic primate, Eamon Martin, in a recent interview after the bishops’ summer meeting. He further fails to acknowledge the gulf that continues to grow more deeply and widely between the hierarchy and the Catholic faithful.
He ends his piece in an upbeat mood with “hope for a brighter future for the church and for Ireland”. I agree with only half of his optimism. Yes, there is a brighter hope for the future of Ireland after the historic referendum result. As for a brighter hope for the Catholic Church after its failure to convince its people to reject the referendum – well, that is wishful thinking. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN BUTLER,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – “The entire Yes campaign”, Rev Twomey states, “was intimidating”. He asks “how many failed to vote because they were intimidated?”
The Catholic Church is a gigantic, wealthy, and global organisation with billions of members. It assures its members that adherence to its doctrines is a gateway to heaven and that non-compliance can result in eternal damnation. It has control of the schools in almost every parish of this land. It was by far the largest and best-resourced organisation in the referendum campaign. It was solidly on the No side.
Being confronted by different opinions, particularly if unused to being confronted, can be challenging, but “intimidating”? I don’t think so.– Yours, etc,
VAL COSGRAVE,
Rathnew,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – I find many of the opinion pieces published in The Irish Times objectionable, but there are also many with which I agree and many which I find interesting. This breadth of opinion is one of the main reasons I read the paper. Yesterday, however, three weeks after the marriage equality referendum, I found myself reading Vincent Twomey's article on it. I don't believe this can be excused on the grounds of balance.
Dr Twomey seems to be making the argument that the referendum passed because Irish people were too nice to vote No to the gays. This is simply offensive. To suggest that 60 per cent of the population voted in favour of the referendum simply to avoid causing offence or upsetting gays is preposterous. Some 60 per cent of the population voted in favour of no longer withholding rights from our homosexual friends and family members because they want to live in an equal society.
I would also like some explanation as to how The Irish Times allowed Dr Twomey to place the words gay, out, equality and human rights in quotation marks. – Yours, etc,
DAVID HARTE,
Inchicore,
Dublin 8.