Sir, – “Who introduced the term same-sex marriage”? asks Denis Gill (July 24th) “Could two cohabiting sisters avail of such a marriage if they so wished? Could a father-son pair living together in the same house marry for tax/inheritance purposes?” Mr Gill might learn something if he “heterosexualised” his argument, which would then run like this: “Could a cohabiting brother and sister avail of a heterosexual marriage?” No they cannot.
“Could a father-daughter pair living in the same house marry for tax/inheritance purposes?” No they cannot.
Marriage between people in such relationships is forbidden to heterosexuals and it would be expected that it would equally be forbidden to homosexuals if they were allowed to marry.
Indeed it could be said that same-sex marriage is a misnomer. There is only marriage – being sought by same-sex couples.
Mr Gill believes that the marriage of two people of the same sex would be “a complex, legal, constitutional issue with matters relating to definition, eligibility, entitlements, children and more”. . . as if a separate list of considerations would have to apply to same-sex couples.
This is not the case. Same-sex couples seek only the right to access what is already in place for heterosexual couples.
There is no need to change anything, except the sexist dimension of the Constitution. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Jessica Copley (July 20th) suggests I am an advocate of tyranny by virtue of wishing to see democratic consultation in respect of the issue of same-sex marriage. Is that the Ireland of today? Where an individual or group may declare something is a “right’ by fiat and those who wish to discuss the matter are tyrants?
All citizens do indeed have a right to equality before the law, as Ms Copley states. However, the reason we are having a debate on same-sex marriage is that no law exists to establish it as a right.
In our society law is established by the will of the people. That is a right I trust no one will dispute. It is not tyranny to wish to have a discussion followed by a vote to determine the will of the majority on an issue; it is democracy.
Tyranny is more likely to be found where the few seek to take charge of a society and run it according to their own will and pleasure, irrespective of the democratic rights of the many. – Yours, etc,