A chara, – I was thoroughly baffled by a number of points in Patrick Treacy's opinion piece "Be courageous and vote No in marriage poll" (March 3rd).
I was baffled as to how devising “a new name and language for same sex-unions in our Constitution” could amount to LGBTI relationships being “equally respected” when such an approach could only serve to copperfasten the very sense of otherness and inferiority that makes people in such relationships feel as excluded and unequally respected as they do.
I was baffled as to how a Yes vote could constitute a “misapplication of the principle of equality” – especially as Mr Treacy didn’t bother to elaborate. I suspect he was suggesting that meaningful equality does not simply mean treating everyone the same – and I agree. But what equality does mean is taking into account of different people’s different needs so that everyone has an equal opportunity to fulfil those needs. It means a level playing field. I am baffled as to how a No vote could constitute a “more honest” and “just” means to that end.
I was further baffled by Mr Treacy’s understanding of marriage itself, mainly because he seems rather baffled by it himself, flitting between legalese and woolly cod-philosophy. He first reserves marriage for relationships which “can bring life into the world”, then states that male-female relationships deserve special recognition – regardless of whether they “beget” children – because of their “wholeness”.
I am glad to say that I don’t know any couples who define their marriage more in terms of “begetting” children or the “wholeness” of their heterosexuality than in terms of the fullest expression of their love and commitment to each other.
Mr Treacy does admit that “it is time that we allow [gay people] their deepest identity to be expressed constitutionally” – but when it comes to explaining why that must be “in a way that is distinct from marriage” all he offers are platitudes and tautology.
But most baffling of all was that Mr Treacy cautioned Yes campaigners to consider that “a huge number of their fellow citizens . . . in good conscience will never accept this”.
Does Mr Treacy not realise that that is potentially the case in every referendum – indeed every democratic vote – that a large number of citizens may have to accept an outcome they don't agree with?
That is a fundamental aspect of democracy, and I am baffled as to how Mr Treacy seems to think this is a legitimate argument against marriage equality.
Mr Treacy may be right in the broadest sense in stating that “the real burden for a gay or lesbian person is the struggle to be recognised and accepted for who one really is”. But we are not talking about the broad sense here. In this rather more specific instance – the issue of the right to marry – that “real burden” is manifested in the reality of that person’s relationship not being equally recognised and accepted. The bottom line, whatever the spin about “equal respect” and “honest resolutions”, is simply that a No vote will still deny people equal rights, recognition and respect under the law purely on the basis of their sexuality. I’m baffled as to what is so courageous about that. – Is mise,
DAMIEN MURPHY,
Santry,
Dublin 9.