A chara, – It was heartening to read in Fr Iggy O'Donovan's article ("When we vote in referendums we legislate for all citizens not just members of a church", Rite & Reason, March 10th) such a clear, well-reasoned and open-minded understanding of how voting Yes to civil marriage equality can be compatible with Christian beliefs about marriage.
However, though Patrick Monaghan's article ("A Yes vote in the referendum will undermine the principle of equality", Opinion & Analysis, March 11th) initially acknowledges that there is at least a distinction between religious and civil marriage, he then goes on to dedicate a good third of the rest of his column to denouncing civil marriage equality on the basis of Christian interpretations of marriage. While Mr Monaghan is welcome to his interpretations of religious marriage, this remains a referendum specifically about civil marriage rights. What he is not entitled to do is to enforce those interpretations on others who do not share them. Freedom of conscience does not extend to freedom to deny other people's equal civic rights.
Attempting to reframe the proposed amendment as an “attack . . . on the very nature of marriage itself” does not add any credence to Mr Monaghan’s case. In the rest of his piece, he simply presents the same unsupported assumptions and hyperbole – about the “uniqueness” of heterosexual marriage, the supposed denial of children’s rights, and the “pressure” to vote Yes – that have been reiterated and refuted again and again.
It is a fallacy that the recognition of marriage equality “ignores . . . the roles of husbands or wives, the importance of mothers and fathers”. Recognising and respecting the roles of all spouses and all parents regardless of sex or sexuality still encompasses the importance of husbands and wives, mothers and fathers.
Respect and love are not exclusive entities, nor are they finite. Extending the same respect to the love between same-sex couples does not in any way lessen or diminish respect for the love between heterosexual couples. The relationship between any loving husband and wife is not attacked, damaged or changed in any way simply because people of other sexualities are able to formalise their relationship in just the same way. Marriage is, at its essential core, about the loving commitment between two people who want to share their lives together. The value and strength of that commitment derives from those two people – not from whoever else is or isn’t allowed to mark their own commitment with marriage.
Those who claim the proposed amendment amounts to an “attack on marriage” make the false assumption that marriage is homogenous, immutable and set in stone. It is not now nor has it ever been. Over the centuries since the biblical marriage that Mr Monaghan extols, the concept of marriage has evolved enormously, reflecting the evolving realities of the traditions and belief systems our cultures have lived through.
Accepting that people’s sexuality should not be a barrier to equal recognition of their relationships is no attack. It is simply another phase of that evolution of marriage, a growth that grants respect not just to some but to every loving and committed relationship. It is encouraging that many Christians share Fr O’Donnell’s recognition of this fact, and I hope that Mr Monaghan and his cross-denominational group will likewise “give attention to the above issues when they vote”. – Is mise,
DAMIEN MURPHY,
Santry, Dublin 9.