Sir, – Regarding next year's same-sex marriage referendum, Sean Cassidy (January 28th) claims, "If this referendum passes it will be a stake in the vampiric heart of homophobia". His letter comes as a part of a correspondence regarding the legitimacy of the term "homophobia". I suggest that same-sex marriage will not be a stake in the heart of homophobia, or (to put it more accurately) an end to the accusations of homophobia.
Ever since our political and social discourse has become larded with accusations of various phobias or discriminations – sexism, racism, homophobia, and so forth – it has become obvious that there is no limit to these accusations, and they can proliferate endlessly. There are whole university departments and quangos dedicated to the detection of these various phobias, and when no obvious evidence can be found, they are simply “discovered” at a deeper, sublimated level. Even in everyday life, the never-ending spiral of ever-greater political correctness shows the same process at work. Does anyone seriously believe that the bandying about of the term “homophobia” would end, or would even diminish, if next year’s referendum were to pass?
A serious debate cannot concentrate upon the supposed motives of the participants, as it is the easiest thing in the world to seek to discredit your opponent by speculating upon his or her motives. It must concentrate upon the arguments. The word “homophobia” has no place in this debate. – Yours, etc,
MAOLSHEACHLANN
O CEALLAIGH,
Woodford Drive,
Clondalkin Dublin 22.
A chara, – Patrick Treacy argues that "every civilisation that has gone before us" has used the label marriage "to refer to unions between men and women"(January 28th). As such, he believes marriage equality is an inaccurate use of language when discussing the right for men to marry men and women to marry women. He describes it "truthfully" as a campaign for the re-definition of marriage.
While it may be true that most people assume marriage refers to the union between men and women, this is simply an interpretation established by so-called social norms. Our own Constitution does not describe marriage in these terms but rather uses the term “persons”.
That same Constitution states “all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”. Marriage is a legal contract between two people and any loving couple should be able to access it based on the Constitution. So right now, I argue, the law is unconstitutional by discriminating against certain persons when it comes to marriage.
Denying marriage to gay couples sends out a message they are subhuman. Fundamentally, it prevents gay couples from financially protecting each other in the same way straight couples can. Marriage equality will come into effect in the UK from March. People in civil partnerships will have to dissolve their unions to marry, and many will do so because of access to greater rights under marriage. Mundane debates about language serve as unwelcome distractions from the heart of the matter. – Yours, etc,
NATASHA BROWNE,
Woodford New Road,
London, England.