Sir, – Bruce Arnold ("Should Irish voters pass the same-sex marriage referendum?", Opinion & Analysis, February 12th) makes some interesting points, although some seem to be bordering on the bizarre. I have yet to hear anyone argue that consanguinity laws must be abolished if the referendum is passed. And why would impotence or incapacity be impossible to render a same-sex union void? He appears to be clutching desperately at straws.
He cannot recognise same-sex marriages because they are sterile unions, yet he accepts that with sterile heterosexual couples the intent, or possibility, to procreate is there. He has nothing to say about couples who marry beyond childbearing years, many of whom happily tie the knot in their sixties and beyond. Am I to assume he will now refuse to recognise their unions too? – Yours, etc,
NORMAN DAVIES,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – I would recommend anyone who intends to vote in the forthcoming referendum to read the contrasting perspectives of Bruce Arnold and Pádraig Rice. One, the reflections on a marriage forged in the experience of expectation, shared happiness and pain, the joy of children and the devastation of loss. The other an emotional and cogent description of a relationship with all its hopes and expectations. The question is, which is the more valid argument for what marriage in all its complexities really means and entails? – Yours, etc,
EAMONN MANSFIELD,
Ring,
Co Waterford.
Sir, – In your editorial of February 9th ("The meaning of marriage"), you followed a line of reasoning finishing with a conclusion that "marriage is no longer primarily about creating an environment for the rearing of children, though for many people it will do so".
This unsupported statement clashes with people’s everyday experience. In our family three of our children have got married during the past six years and already we are expecting our eighth grandchild later this year. We see our children’s friends regularly having children and also the children of our own friends doing the same.
While readily acknowledging that they love one another, it is glaringly obvious that they want to have children.
Clearly it is normative for the vast majority of young couples, allowing for the fact that some couples are unable or unwilling to do so. These young people form new extended families which further form communities and ultimately the future of Irish society.
That is why Article 41 of the Constitution “pledges to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is based and to protect it from attack” as it contributes to the long-term welfare of society and to the common good. This is the true meaning of marriage. – Yours, etc,
NEIL and ANNE DEAN,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – Michael Austin (February 13th) believes that in the wider setting of the present debate on marriage equality there are two distinct cultures which are in opposition to each other.
There is the culture of the heterosexual nature of marriage which he sees as “being ordained by God”, and the culture of humanism and modern atheism, which he sees as being “without any moral or ethical absolutes”.
He concludes that parity of esteem and social recognition should not be granted to same-sex couples seeking marriage equality because “no such right exists and is therefore not ours to give”.
But there is third culture in the debate which Mr Austin has not identified.
It is the culture that recognises that personal conscience is the ultimate moral and ethical absolute which overrides all others and which many believe comes from God.
Mr Austin is right that it is not his place to give freedom of conscience to anyone. It is for all people to take it by right and duty. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN KELLY,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Both Michael Drury and Sylvia Kennedy (February 13th) argue that permitting access to civil marriage for gay people will cleave marriage from its apparent core meaning of having children and providing for their care.
What this amounts to is the argument that heterosexuals being likely to produce unwanted children should be encouraged to marry, while homosexuals who already raise wanted children should be banned from marrying with the imprimatur of the State.
Gay people already adopt as single applicants, foster jointly and can be appointed guardian only by testamentary disposition (ie on the death of the biological parent). The current ban merely perpetuates family instability for children already being raised by gay parents. Marriage equality would remove this invidious discrimination. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.