Sir, – The campaign for civil marriage equality is about equality for same-sex couples, with or without children. Those opposed to marriage equality often conceptualise the children and the family in a highly idealised fashion. Furthermore, in this conceptualisation the family is configured as an unchanging, nuclear model. The historical evidence challenges somewhat this conceptualisation of the family, pointing instead to the notion of family diversity.
Some opponents of marriage equality also seem to desire the return of an imagined “golden age” of marriage and the family. The opposite was the case for many people in Ireland, especially its poorest and most vulnerable members. The historical record reveals the frequently cruel and degrading treatment of single mothers and their children, including forced adoptions, alongside the inhuman abuse of young boys and girls in various institutions. This barbaric treatment was often at the hands of individuals who, ostensibly, at least, professed the Christian principles of faith, hope and love.
Family diversity is a living reality for many people living in contemporary Ireland. Right now, we have significant numbers of children growing up in single-parent households. We also have same-sex couples that have the responsibility to bring up children.
My professional experience as a community worker and academic has been that the vast majority of parents, regardless of their background, do their very best for their children. In many cases, they may face cultural inequalities or prejudice and hostility or the material inequalities of poverty and deprivation. Still, they go on. They protect their children. They raise future responsible, engaged young citizens, often against huge odds.
In Ireland, the family, with or without children, based in marriage is protected by the Constitution and must be “guarded with special care”. Right now, same-sex families, with or without children, do not have this protected status in Irish law. As a fair and inclusive society, we have to ensure that our laws provide the same level of protection for these families and their children, if any. A Yes vote will provide this special, elevated and protected status for same-sex families, with or without children. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARGARET
O’KEEFFE,
Cork.
Sir, – In relation to those calling for a “conscience” clause in relation to the marriage equality referendum, should such a provision be added to proposed legislation, would they then support a Yes vote? Or at the very least, cease to oppose it?
Those calling for such a clause would like nothing more than a no-compromise, winner-takes-all result – just as long as they are the winners, and that result is a No vote. – Yours, etc,
GERARD BONNER,
Chaoyang,
Beijing.
Sir, – Some contributors to this page, who are clearly on the wrong side of history, claim they have become the victims of the intolerant “liberal agenda”.
One letter sang out the new call of the oppressed, “Why can’t you just tolerate my intolerance?”, with some distant echos of “What about the children” for good measure. – Yours, etc,
CONAR DUNNE,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Is it not time to consider a complete separation of church and state? If this were to exist then the word “marriage” could be given completely and totally to religious groupings and the state could get along with the business of legislating for civil partnerships, and ne’er the twain shall meet? – Yours, etc,
JOHN DOYLE,
Enniskeane, Co Cork.
Sir, – Brendan Regan (April 16th) argues that allowing gay people access to civil marriage could lead to polygamy. There is no legitimate basis for this assertion.
As Nancy Rosenblum has argued: “Patriarchy has been the dominant form of polygamy. Its justification has never been reciprocity or friendship, even ideally. It has never been the expansion of affection or cooperation. It has rested on ideological or spiritual accounts of male authority and female subjection, on status associated with number of wives and, of course, about beliefs of male sexual power (or the need to temper women’s sexual power)”.
Polygamy is not therefore a logical analogy that undermines the solid case for championing equality in our laws.
The only material change that will result from marriage equality is two people of the same sex will be able to access civil marriage. A republic founded on rights should not deny rights on the basis of hypothetical nonsense. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
A chara, – Dublin Friends (also known as Quakers) met on April 15th and discussed the forthcoming referendum on marriage equality. There was a diversity of views in the meeting, as there is among Irish Quakers generally.
At the heart of Friends’ Christian practice is the freedom to think and express opinions and to speak or vote in seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The founder of Quakerism, George Fox, said as early as 1697 “marriage is the work of the Lord only . . . for it is in God’s ordinance and not man’s . . . we marry none; it is the Lord’s work and we are but witnesses”.
Since the introduction of civil partnerships, Quakers in Dublin have conducted meetings for worship to celebrate the committed relationships of our members.
As Christians, Quakers are deeply committed to equality, recognising God in every person. It is fundamental to Christianity that we should seek to love our neighbours as ourselves. – Yours, etc,
ALAN G HARRISON,
Clerk,
Dublin Monthly Meeting
of the Religious Society
of Friends,
Dublin 16.