Sir, – Could the Taoiseach please set a date in May for the referendum on marriage equality? Those living abroad would like to book their flights home to vote Yes. – Yours, etc,
ANNA SHACKLETON,
Wandsworth, London.
Sir, – Unavoidably, a key part of the current debate centres on the word “marriage”, in which two quite distinct meanings are apparent. One is the established heterosexual monogamy meaning, which has been the social foundation of most societies throughout the world for a very long period. While the second meaning aims to invest the word with new ideas and ideals, which would then apply to two persons, without distinction as to their sex.
But is it really that easy or even acceptable to change radically the meaning of such an important social institution? While the proposed change to the Constitution is intended to introduce genuine equality by extending the meaning of marriage to include the second, new meaning, I suggest any attempt to alter this meaning does nothing to create genuine equality, but everything to create an illusion of the same.
This proposed fundamental change to our understanding of human society is based on the new vision in our emerging European social order that secularism now rules.
And we will probably be reminded that if we believe in generosity we ought to be happy to let same-sex pairs enjoy the same social privileges that traditional marriage brought.
I certainly believe in generosity, but it is not best shown by facilitating the marked devaluation of marriage as the social foundation of our society. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL AUSTIN,
Gorey, Co Wexford.
Sir, – The debate on same-sex marriage has focused on the rights of children, and this is quite correct. Children are the most vulnerable members of our society. I agree with those who oppose same-sex marriage because they feel it undermines a child’s right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own. However, I have to admit that my opposition to same-sex marriage goes deeper still. It comes down to a question of how we view our social institutions. Do we see them as a legacy to be held in trust, or do we see them as a machine to be reassembled at will? I support the legitimate role of sentiment in social life.
Society is not a machine for living in, and the very word “marriage” has a hundred associations of masculinity and femininity, of romance and chivalry, of motherhood and fatherhood, of tradition and custom, that we should not feel ashamed of protecting.
The champions of same-sex marriage assure us that little will change if this referendum is passed, that marriage is being expanded rather than changed. Once the deal is sealed, do you think social radicals are going to hesitate to press the advantage? Do you think they will be slow to challenge and denounce every “heterosexist” or “archaic” assumption made about the redefined institution of marriage? Of course not. – Yours, etc,
MAOLSHEACHLANN
Ó CEALLAIGH,
Ballymun, Dublin 11.
Sir, – I think this “so-called Christian country’s” descent into “moral and spiritual decadence” (Robert A Sharpe, January 29th) had started long before the concept of same-sex marriage was ever on the agenda. Those responsible for the decline in religion and traditional moral values are the very institutions that now rail against what is in essence a basic human right. – Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Goodness, Mr Sharpe, I’m afraid the moral and spiritual decadence has been around for quite some time. You should have seen some of the heterosexual weddings I have attended over the years. – Yours, etc,
Dr CIARAN KIRRANE,
Salthill, Galway.
Sir, – I also share a concern for “the children”. I am especially concerned for my own children. I have two sons, one of whom happens to be gay. I would like equal rights for both my sons. If the referendum is passed, my two sons will be afforded equal rights in their country of birth. It is a simple question with an obvious answer. Vote Yes. – Yours, etc,
MARY KNOX O’BRIEN,
Rathgar, Dublin 6.