A chara, – “The public might soon be asked to vote in a referendum on the constitutional definition of a family contained in article 41, the Attorney General has told the Supreme Court” (News, July 14th).
I would urge considerable caution.
There is no “definition of a family contained in article 41″. Article 41:1 “recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.” Article 41:3 states that “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
The Article states the important place of the family in Irish society, without defining the word; in each case, however, the word “Family” is given a capital letter in both Irish (“Teaghlach”) and English. The word is used in such a way that an accepted and undisputed meaning is clearly assumed. “Pósadh” and “Marriage” too are capitalised, without a definition.
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Jack Reynor: ‘We were in two minds between eloping or going the whole hog but we got married in Wicklow with about 220 people’
‘I could have gone to California. At this rate, I probably would have raised about half a billion dollars’
By definition, a definition specifies both the reality addressed and the limits beyond which it does not apply. To extend the meaning may sometimes be helpful, but may also sometimes distort the meaning previously intended.
A widespread understanding of marriage in Ireland at the time the Constitution was formulated could perhaps be stated as “The voluntary union for life, of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” Legally this status changed and the meaning of the word extended to subsume the legalisation of divorce (1996) and the Marriage Equality Act (2015). We now do not have a word to refer to the earlier meaning – it now requires qualification. Extending the meaning of the word marriage to include what was formerly excluded has meant a loss of the former specific meaning.
The word “Family” can be used in a strict sense of the unit of mother, father and children, including adopted and/or fostered children. It can be used of such a “nuclear” family and of extended family. It is used analogically for example when we speak of a “family of nations”. What will happen with the word “family” if we extend its meaning to include realities and relationships not previously included? Can we not use other forms of words to address those other realities and make provision for them?
Can we not do as we did when we introduced paternity leave: we didn’t just include it under the previous provision for maternity leave, which would have implied that “mother” includes “father”? More usefully, we made specific provision.
Remember what Lewis Carroll wrote. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.” (Through the Looking Glass) – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Dublin 16.