Sir, – I think a perfect response to Patrick Monaghan's argument against marriage equality ("A Yes vote in the referendum will undermine the principle of equality", Opinion & Analysis, March 11th) was given by WB Yeats in the Seanad against the introduction of a ban on divorce: "You are to insist upon [people] . . . taking a certain view of biblical criticism, or of the authority of the text upon which that criticism is exercised, a view that they notoriously do not take. If you legislate upon such grounds there is no reason why you should stop there. There is no reason why you should not forbid civil marriages altogether seeing that civil marriage is not marriage in the eyes of the church". – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Sir, – In his Rite & Reason article ("When we vote in referendums we legislate for all citizens not just members of a church", March 10th), Fr Iggy O'Donovan proposes a Yes vote on the basis of his interpretation of the Gospel passage where Jesus tell us "Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God". It is tempting to interpret these words of Jesus, as Fr O'Donovan does, as a teaching on temporal and religious obligations, in recognition of one's civil citizenship.
Jesus, however, does not specify the things that belong to Caesar, for Caesar does not possess anything independently of God; he does not need to specify the things that belong to God, since everything does.
Jesus is hardly arguing to two independent spheres of power and obligation, that of Caesar and that of God, with parallel sets of obligation. Since God has dominion over the whole of creation, Caesar’s relevant power is subservient to the ultimate power of God. In the teaching of Jesus it is for the people to evaluate whether Caesar (in our case the Irish State) in proposing a Yes vote is reflecting the things of God. God’s design for marriage (Genesis 1:27:28) is a permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman.
In the context of same-sex marriage, Pope Francis warns of “powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation”.
Respecting the opinion of those who differ from us is also given by Fr O’Donovan as a reason for a Yes vote. I’m afraid I find Fr O’Donovan’s understanding of respect to be as flawed and misleading as his interpretation of the Gospel. – Yours, etc,
Fr GREGORY O’BRIEN, PP
Templeogue, Dublin 6W.
Sir, – The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to premarital sex, cohabitation, artificial contraception, childbirth outside church-sanctioned marriage, divorce, homosexual activity , abortion – even when the life of the mother is endangered – and now marriage equality.
The good news is that the proposed amendment to the Constitution relates to civil marriage only and practising and obedient Roman Catholics will remain free not to indulge in any of the above-mentioned activities and practices and the marriage ceremonies as conducted in Catholic churches will remain exclusively heterosexual.
As the State respects the rights of the Roman Catholic and other churches to practise their religion as they see fit, it is only right that all religions operating in this State respect the civil rights of all other citizens to live their lives within the law and remain free from dictation by doctrine or dogma from whatever source. – Yours, etc,
HUGH PIERCE,
Celbridge ,
Co Kildare.
A chara, – The decision to change the wording of the Irish version of the proposed constitutional amendment is a further example of Government incompetence ("Irish-language version of same-sex vote text changed", March 10th). How could the ambiguity of the original wording have escaped the gaze of highly paid officials of the Attorney General's office? Or of the Attorney General herself? Or of the Minister for Justice? Why should the Government need to be saved from political disaster by Bruce Arnold? – Is mise,
PEADAR Mac MAGHNAIS,
Baile Átha Cliath 5.
Sir, – Senator Rónán Mullen made remarks carried in an article in your newspaper concerning the perceived bias of the broadcast media with respect to coverage of the forthcoming referendum ("Senator claims broadcasters pushing gay marriage 'agenda'", March 11th). What interested me initially was the image used by The Irish Times – a close-up photo of Mr Mullen's face. The image is unflattering and I think intended to make Mr Mullen look foolish. This is not the first time the Senator has been treated in this way. I think it's petty and completely unprofessional.
We are left in no doubt whose side The Irish Times is on. – Yours, etc,
MÁRTAN Ó CONGHAILE,
Monkstown Valley,
Dublin.