Sir, – When getting married, a couple makes a public commitment to one another. It is not merely some private undertaking. That is why witnesses are required. They do this so that wider society recognises this mutual bond and undertakes to publicly honour their commitment and to hold them accountable for honouring it. Part of the argument for extending access to marriage during the marriage equality referendum was that we should, as a society, offer that recognition openly and publicly to those who are willing to make such a commitment to one another. The remaining restrictions on who can get married exist on the grounds of ability to give consent, such as age and admittedly traditional grounds of medical unsuitability, ie existing familial ties. Essentially marriage is open to all. There is a clear process by which a marriage can be seen to have legally begun and also clearly legally ended. There is no such clear process outside of marriage. Could people find themselves deemed to be in a durable relationship without having given consent to be in it, or even to still be in a durable relationship despite having gotten married or even entered into what they may see as a new durable relationship but the previous partner does not? How does the notion of enduring parental relationships fit with the situation of an adopted child? Will the birth parents retain a legal relationship post-adoption more so than is the case now? When does a durable relationship and the assumed commitments involved end? If we’re intent on creating something new then we should be clear on what it is and how it may end before we start to do so. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL K SULLIVAN,
Marino,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – The word " durable " is incompatible with contemporary society when “built-in obsolescence” is de rigueur in all areas. Let the Government define durable first and then I’ll consider my position prior to the referendum. – Yours, etc,
AILEEN HOOPER,
Stoneybatter,
Dublin 7.