Sir, – Dr Thomas Finegan makes a number of incorrect assertions about what the Yes campaign is putting forward in the marriage equality referendum debate and indeed about the core meaning of marriage ("Yes campaign is based on entirely flawed premises", Opinion & Analysis, April 21st).
To say that the Yes campaigner makes marriage out to be an inherently sexual union is incorrect. The No campaign consistently argues that marriage is a union with the purpose of producing children – an inherently sexual union that ignores the position of those heterosexual married couples who are unable to bear children. This view also ignores the ability of homosexual couples to parent children and the ability of heterosexual couples who are not married to bear and successfully parent children.
The No campaign’s view of marriage is one solely to produce children. The Yes campaign has never advocated for recognition of all close bonds between two consenting adults to be recognised as a marriage. This is an absurdity that Dr Finegan has put forward, as have others.
This referendum is about defining what the State does recognise as marriage, and what we as a society want to recognise as marriage. That view can and has changed over time. For instance, what of the “one man, one woman, for life” definition of marriage? Has the institution of marriage broken down since the introduction of divorce 20 years ago? I think not.
Even if we consider the point that marriage is solely about bearing children, this still does not preclude same-sex couples. This is an issue that the Yes campaign should tackle head on. Homosexual parents are not innately bad parents because of their sexuality, just as heterosexual parents are not innately good parents because of their sexuality. A multitude of factors in the ability to raise a child are consistently ignored by the No campaign.
If, as Dr Finegan points out, the Yes campaigner’s view on marriage is an absurdity and their is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, why does our Constitution not directly state that marriage is a union between one man and one woman? The fact is, it does not. Bunreacht na hÉireann does not preclude same-sex marriage; it has simply been interpreted as doing so. Such a finding could potentially be overturned by the Supreme Court in the near future and where would that leave Dr Finegan’s argument? Article 41 merely mentions the institution of marriage and there is little to preclude the Oireachtas from legislating as to the definition of marriage.
Thankfully, for the sake of legal certainty, we are now proceeding with a referendum to amend the Constitution and set out a clear definition of marriage.
Whether the referendum passes or not, the act of amending the Constitution underlies its status as a “living instrument”, one that reflects an evolving democratic society. – Yours, etc,
JEFF WALSH,
Clonsilla,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Dr Thomas Finegan states that article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the view that marriage is a “man-woman union”. Article 16 is intended to protect the equal rights between men and women within marriages, and does not exclude anyone (other than minors) from the institution of marriage. Further, the declaration was drafted at a time when political views on marriage equality were unenlightened, even by today’s standards. As the South African constitutional court stated, in a 2005 judgment upholding marriage equality as a constitutional right, rights will atrophy if they are frozen in time. Society has changed significantly since the declaration was drafted, and we should not let our beliefs on marriage equality be dictated by the values of the 1940s.
Most importantly however, Dr Finegan’s views are directly contrary to articles 2 and 7 of the declaration, which state that all human beings are equal before the law, and that the rights and freedoms in the declaration belong to all people regardless of status. Dr Finegan may wish to deny gay people the right to marry, but it is nonsensical to suggest that in doing so he has human rights law on his side. – Yours, etc,
DONNCHA
Ó CONMHUÍ, LLB, BCL
Dublin 8.
Sir, – From what cloud does the allegedly neutral outfit called Yes Equality expect ordinary citizens to have descended? It says its so-called voter registration campaign for the upcoming referendum is “very clearly just about registering”. So why is the campaign not called Yes Or No Equality? I think they should try pulling the other leg! – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN O’BYRNES,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Reading the obituary ("Engaging and influential university teacher", April 18th) of Paddy O'Carroll, whom I never knew, I was taken by a comment he made about the impact of the bishops on the 1983 abortion referendum. He said, inter alia, "The referendum was treated [by the bishops] as a rite of renewal directed to the maintenance of cultural supremacy." Still pertinent? – Yours, etc,
TERRY DOLAN, Dublin 15.
Sir, – Stephen McIntyre of Twitter assures us that marriage equality will be good for business ("Yes vote in referendum would be good for Twitter and for Ireland", Opinion & Analysis, April 21st). So any one with any qualms about the social or psychological implications for children should just accept it? Why worry? With advances in medical technology we will soon be able to transfer the whole reproduction process to incubators. No women will have to suffer the burden of child-bearing, and sex will be a purely recreational or therapeutic or competitive activity (tick where applicable). And with all the money we make, children will be so well cared for that they won't need any parental role models. And there will be plenty of IT jobs for them. – Yours, etc,
BERYL SHANKS
Bray, Co Wicklow.