Sir, – Many column inches have been expended on these pages discussing the nature of marriage, apparent or real. I have read appeals to reason and rationality, to sentiment and morality, to “real” and not “bogus” equality. Once in a while logic has reared its head.
Nothing about extending the definition of marriage in any way takes away from the current, traditional definition of marriage as the union between man and woman. We have been asked “do we really want to experiment”, “embark on a voyage into the unknown” and more.
Well, I can only write from experience. Five years ago I moved to one of the few countries that had long since allowed equal marriage. By then I had been married for six years. Strangely, not a day goes by when I emphatically do not wake up, say good morning to the missus, and lament how our marriage is not what it once was.
When I venture out, I never hear my Dutch neighbours discussing whether they should be allowed to marry their wife’s pet dog, adopt the donkey at the local petting zoo, or engage in equal union with the local red herring.
People meet and fall in love. Some marry and have children. Some don’t. They cycle up and down outside my window. They succeed and fail much as anywhere else. No one notices. No one says “wasn’t it so much better back then?” Life goes on. We have other fish to fry, not least struggling education, health and social services, public transport and infrastructure.
Get over it and vote Yes. You won’t notice the difference either. – Yours, etc,
LORCAN KENNAN,
The Hague, Netherlands.
Sir, – The cynicism of the Coalition with regard to the Children and Family Relationships Bill and the same-sex marriage referendum is breathtaking. Having realised that adoption rights are likely to be at the heart of objections to the referendum, the Government’s answer is to try and negate the possible unwillingness of the electorate to approve such a step by introducing it in legislation.
What is the urgency of this legislation if not to try and pre-empt objections to the referendum?
Why not wait until the referendum is passed before finalising this legislation?
It is also very difficult to understand how the proposed legislation could be construed as “guarding with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded”, as per (Article 41.3.1) of our Constitution. – Yours, etc,
DAVID PIGOTT,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – The insistence of some commentators on repeating the slogan of the “child’s right to a mother and father” is merely a rhetorical sleight of hand primed substantially for emotional effect and obfuscation.
Clearly all children have a mother and father so I can only assume that what really is being implied is that a child has a right to be parented by one man and one woman. Even as a spurious and contentious aspiration any attempts to enshrine such a right would throw up a myriad of absurdities in our attempts to assert or vindicate it. No more than trying, say, to assert the child’s right to a brother and sister. The process becomes futile and tiresome.
If commentators feel that same-sex couples or single parents are unsuitable for the role of parenting, please say so and explain why. This would save us all from the turgid dissembling and humbug.
Of course this really is a side issue to that of marriage equality and I find myself getting lured into this sideshow of “children’s rights”. I suspect that this has been the intention all along. – Yours, etc,
CONOR KEANE,
Cork.