Sir, – Fr Iggy O'Donovan says that he will be voting Yes to marriage equality in May, primarily because he believes that even Jesus separated civil law from religious law when he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" ("When we vote in referendums we legislate for all citizens not just members of a church", Opinion & Analysis, March 10th).
While it is good to hear that a Catholic priest will be voting Yes to marriage equality despite the opposition of the Catholic bishops, may I make the point that many gay people are Christians, and in seeking to marry they believe themselves to be giving to God what is God’s.
It is insulting and patronising to gay Christians to suggest that their marriages have nothing to do with God. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN KELLY,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – I was surprised to read Bishop of Elphin Kevin Doran admitting that "some people perhaps have a predisposition genetically to being gay". I wasn't surprised at what he was saying. It is well accepted that sexuality is a result of a complex interplay between various genes and the hormonal environment of the womb, with the foundations of sexuality laid down in the developing foetal brain before birth. What surprised me was how Bishop Doran can accept that being born gay is perfectly natural and yet is able wholeheartedly to oppose marriage equality. It is a simple fact of human existence that a small minority of us are born with a physical and emotional attraction to members of our own sex. The sooner the Catholic Church and Bishop Doran can reconcile their teachings with the science of sexuality, the sooner gay people around the world will be able to lead much happier and safer lives. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARK McCARRON,
New York.
Sir, – Bishop Kevin Doran claims that “perhaps in some cases people are gay because of contexts, circumstances related to their own experience of life as young people”. Perhaps the bishop could point us in the direction of the academic research that supports his claim. Also, does he know if you can turn gay people into straight people if you change the context and circumstances he refers to? – Yours, etc,
JUSTIN McALEESE,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Brian Carey (March 9th) is of the view that the case that there is an intrinsic link between children and marriage does not hold water given that many couples cannot have children. He misses the whole point of the argument, which is to vindicate the rights of children to have parents, not vice versa. That can only happen within a male/female relationship, and society has found that the best support for the commitment that involves is the institution of marriage. – Yours, etc,
MARGARET HICKEY,
Blarney,
Co Cork.
Sir, – The No campaign consistently claims that its objection to same-sex marriage is to protect the best interest of children. Unfortunately, this reasoning fails to protect the LGBT children of Ireland. We must think about the children who grow up hearing about the value of straight people and their “unique” relationships, to which a same-sex relationship could never compare. The children who fear showing their true selves, because they could be bullied at school, or disowned by their parents. The children who hear that they are inferior to their straight peers not only from adults in their lives and in the media, but also know that the State, which claims to keep family and the protection of children at its core, reinforces this view.
We cannot pick and choose which children of our country to protect and this is why we all have a duty to vote Yes. We need to tell all the children of Ireland that they have value and the State is there to protect their interests, no matter who they may love. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN MURPHY,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – It is refreshing to read a contribution to this debate which attempts to analyse the ideological rationale underlying the various viewpoints. Unfortunately, Helen Ryder's suggestion (March 7th) that a conscience clause would be an attempt to retain Catholic theocratic privilege is very wide of the mark.
As a Christian in the non-conformist tradition who believes strongly in the separation of church and state, I believe that a conscience clause is needed in the Equal Status Act, simply on the grounds of human rights – the freedom to live in accordance with one’s faith and moral code. There is a well-known legal precedent for this. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act has a conscience clause and crisis pregnancy counsellors similarly are not obligated to provide information on abortion.
Egalitarianism has made significant contributions to the elimination of prejudice and inequality. However, extreme egalitarianism can be blind to real differences. While we are all equal in status and dignity, clearly we are not equal in ability or qualification. Unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. As such, it is contrary to the physiological nature (as distinct from desires) of those who practice it, as it precludes the possibility of the fulfilment of their natural procreative potential. Similarly, same-sex couples cannot provide children with the balanced, complementary nurturing of a father and mother, whereas heterosexual couples can.
The Equality Commission’s claim that the referendum is a matter of equality and human rights is seriously misleading because it is so at odds with reality. If advocates of this proposal are willing to see people who disagree with their viewpoint jailed, they need to demonstrate why such very different types of relationships must be regarded as equal – rather than simply telling us that they are. – Yours, etc,
IAN KENNEDY,
Tramore,
Co Waterford.