Sir, – Dr Linda Hogan ("Same-gender marriage can fit with Christianity", Rite & Reason, April 21st) attempts to use Christianity to support a Yes vote in the marriage referendum. Dr Hogan claims that challenges to the natural law by science, politics and feminist theologians show it to be based on erroneous scientific views.
What Dr Hogan does not reference is that the natural law is the law of nature written by God in the hearts of men and women and no matter how may alternatives are proffered by science, politics or feminists, the complementarity of the sexes and the centrality of reproduction in sexual relationships will never be erased from the human heart precisely because it is the law of nature.
The Christian teaching on marriage which includes these elements from the natural law finds a resonance in the hearts of so many men and women not merely because the Christian church proclaims it to be so but because this truth is innate in our being.
Mentioning truth can be more than a little awkward when attempting to use Christianity to support political correctness. Dr Hogan puts Christian marriage in the context of cultural and social norms that change over time. Whereas Christian marriage is part of revelation – the unchanging truth revealed by Christ – it is our insight and understanding that develops through prayer, reflection and the lived experience of Christians.
Dr Hogan claims equality to be a core Christian value, yet since in human history it has appeared as a value in society relatively recently it is doubtful that enough evidence to support such a claim could be found in scripture or tradition.
But if she has a mind to she will find ample evidence to support truth as a core Christian value, one that can guide us in our decisions in what is best for humanity.
To attempt to use Christianity to support a redefining of marriage to suit an unbridled political correctness is misleading in the extreme. – Yours, etc,
Fr GREGORY
O’BRIEN, PP
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – Contrary to Dr Linda Hogan's piece on the "mistaken assumption that those who are motivated by religious belief do not support same-sex marriage", we now have three of the four major churches in Ireland calling for a No vote, after the Presbyterian Church has now joined the Catholics and Methodists in attempting to bar equality ("Presbyterian Church urges No in marriage equality referendum," April 22nd).
Once again, religion shows its true colours. – Yours, etc,
PADRAIG FAGAN,
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I voted Yes in both divorce referendums. I support the Civil Partnership Act 2010. On social matters my views are liberal and “left of centre”. I am not a member of any campaigning organisation. I will vote No in the marriage referendum.
I appeal to politicians and members of the media who intend to vote No to come out and say so. This would be an important reassurance to No voters, many of whom, at this stage of the campaign, feel bullied and cowed into silence. – Yours, etc,
KEN STANLEY,
Castledermot,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Jeff Walsh's letter (April 22nd) on Thomas Finegan's "Yes campaign is based on entirely flawed premises" (Opinion & Analysis, April 21st) encapsulates the muddled thinking of the Yes campaign. We are being asked to change our Constitution, and anyone who wants to alter it must make a compelling case that the change is essential. Such a change is not needed, I believe, in light of the fact that civil partnership currently recognises the needs and gifts of our gay fellow citizens, but without affecting the place of man-woman marriage.
The “infertile heterosexual couple” argument constantly put forward by the Yes side holds no water. The only act that our bodily organs are designed to fulfil in concert with another person is reproduction. If in performing this act, no reproduction occurs, that does not change the fact that the act would be, and is designed to be, fulfilled by the production of a new human being. No other act, however loving, however important to the individuals concerned, has this capacity.
Recognising in a special, and yes, “unequal” way this unique act, its unique capacity, and the children that can come about as a result, makes sense and has made sense since before the foundation of any extant society, culture, or religion. Of course reproduction is not the only end of marriage.
The Yes side got its idea of loving partnership from all the other benefits that can flow from a marriage whether or not children are involved. But being incapable of performing the unique act, with its unique potential, means that a marriage as such is not present. (This has been applied to heterosexual couples who cannot consummate, and therefore do not have a valid marriage.)
Mr Walsh’s comments about homosexual parents are non-starters. In every case of “gay parenting”, at least one of the two partners is not the natural parent of the child. Two men or two women may adopt, commission, or obtain children from some other source, but never can reproduce as the result of an act undertaken by them alone as is the case with heterosexual parents.
Mr Walsh states that the Constitution does not specify that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Bunreacht na hÉireann says that “the State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit of society”, and that it is “antecedent and superior to all positive law”.
In other words, the State did not bestow the right to marry, it simply acknowledged the prior existence of heterosexual, potentially reproductive, marriage and the families that result from marriage.
The framers of the Constitution, working from assumptions and ideas prevalent at the time it was written, could have chosen to claim that monasticism, kibbutzim, or any other interesting arrangements that humans have ever devised, would thenceforth be known as the “natural primary and fundamental unit of society”, but that would have been revolutionary.
Redefining marriage is indeed incredibly radical and revolutionary, very much against the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and I wish the Yes side would be honest about that instead of claiming that something so foundational can be so arbitrarily changed.
I urge every voter in the country to read Article 41 in its (brief) entirety and reflect on what it means, and on what a nonsense it will become if this referendum is carried. – Yours, etc,
JENNIFER
MOONEY GALWOLIE,
Lifford,
Co Donegal.
A chara, – Dr Thomas Finegan makes a number of points in his opinion piece . Most of his views as expressed are just that – his views based on his thinking and that is more than fair enough for an opinion piece.
It is where he applies his views to article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I found myself actually looking up article 16 to see what it says.
Dr Flanagan says “that article considers marriage as a man-woman union”.
That may well be what Dr Finegan would like it to say but it is not actually what it says. The article starts by saying “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”.
Nowhere does the article specify that marriage is a man-woman union as Dr Finegan indicates but it does state clearly that men and women of full age have the right to marry. Nowhere in article 16 is it prescriptive about the combination involved. – Is mise,
THOMAS O’CONNOR,
Quilty,
Co Clare.
Sir, – The point has been raised that gay marriage may be the first step towards polygamy; if the gender balance can be changed, why not the number of participants?
However, the wording of the amendment reads: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex”.
At first blush, it would seem that, rather than opening the doors to polygamy, the referendum will for the first time place an express constitutional limit on the number of participants in a marriage; should future generations wish to provide institutional support for polyamorous relationships, they shall have to hold a referendum.
Perhaps, given the above, we may yet see the No side campaign for the freedom of conscience of our polygamistic religious minorities, or those few stalwarts who still cling to Brehon law.
Whatever occurs, this referendum will not legalise polygamy, though it may bar it further. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN FITZPATRICK,
Foxrock,
Dublin 18.