Sir, – On May 22nd, we are being asked if two people of the same sex should have the right to civil marriage. That’s it. We’re not being asked if they can marry in a church; that’s up to the church. We’re not being asked if they can have children; that has already been dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill. Same-sex couples have been having children for years and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of this referendum.
The very essence of marriage is based on love. We’ve all been to weddings, and some of us have been lucky enough to have had our own. I had the great fortune of marrying the love of my life last year and I just cannot imagine not being allowed to marry him. (I might add that when he went down on one knee, he just had to ask me and not the entire country!) I urge people to reflect on the sentiment expressed when a couple exchange vows. I’ll never forget the surge of happiness I felt that day and eight months later still feel. Gay and lesbian people feel love in the same way as everyone else. In a world where so many wrongs are being committed, how can we deny two people their chance of happiness? – Yours, etc,
ALI KEANE,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – I am extremely disappointed to read that the Law Society of Ireland has entered the political arena by taking sides in the marriage referendum ("Marriage equality is a human right, says Law Society", May 7th). I thought that law and politics were completely separate entities. Are we to hear its views on every referendum and every political debate in the future? This is a very worrying development. – Yours, etc,
MARY B KELLY,
Dublin 22.
A chara, – Rev Canon Prof Patrick Comerford ("Many faiths do not share common view on marriage", Opinion & Analysis, May 7th) writes: "There is no one common, unchanging theological understanding of marriage shared by all faith traditions." He quotes biblical examples: "King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines". We may question Solomon's wisdom, but he was missing one thing – there is no mention of Solomon having a husband. – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Dublin 16.
A chara, – Archbishop Eamon Martin is right in thinking that redefining marriage is not a trivial matter.
To people who, under the current definition, are unjustly denied equal access to civil marriage because they are not heterosexual, it’s not trivial at all. Nor is it a trivial matter to want to ensure our Constitution affords the same legal rights, recognition and respect to all citizens, regardless of their sexuality. Far from being trivial, it’s nothing short of our civic duty. – Is mise,
DAMIEN MURPHY,
Santry,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – I believe that the essential definition and true meaning of marriage is the traditional one; it is the life-long relationship of a woman and man that is open to new life and formalised by the law.
I also believe unreservedly in the equal dignity and uniqueness of every human being and acknowledge the diversity of humanity and human relationships.
In view of the above, the more I have reflected on the forthcoming vote, I have come to the conclusion that the marriage equality referendum, if passed, in a subtle way will do a disservice to both same-sex and heterosexual unions.
I believe the long-standing definition and understanding of traditional marriage cannot be validly changed to accommodate changes in society.
The proposal will radically change marriage so that it is no longer marriage in the true and essential sense of the institution.
In an effort to provide equality this proposal offers a compromise that serves neither same-sex or heterosexual couples well. It will deny the difference and uniqueness of each relationship and in a vain attempt to treat both equally it will offer each a newly defined marriage that has lost its essence and integrity.
This attempt to accommodate two different relationships in the same mould is not equality. Equality accepts difference and creates solutions that reflect and respect diverse realities equally but in an appropriate way.
Is it not possible to recognise, solemnise and protect the faithful, life-long commitment of same-sex couples equally but elsewhere in the Constitution?
This would respect the uniqueness and validity of their relationships and would be a more appropriate way to reflect and accommodate a very real and integral change in society. – Yours, etc,
CATRIONA FLAHERTY,
Kilmessan,
Co Meath.
Sir, – In a recent blog in the New York Review of Books, David Cole makes the point that "same-sex marriage was only unthinkable as long as we didn't think it".
Well, we are thinking it now. On May 22nd what we have thought may become a fact, and then for our children, grandchildren and future generations a “matter of fact”.
Our thinking needs to continue if and when the referendum is passed. I hope, that in time, it might be read by the Christian churches as a challenge to review theological responses to questions about marriage and family. This could extend beyond the domestic nuclear family, highlighted in this debate to the detriment of other models, to a wider concept of “households of faith” based on love and justice, on right relationships, on hospitality to difference.
Such models would underline the role of the community in supporting these significant “public” declarations and celebrations of “private” loves, that they might become gift and grace, not just for the couple involved, but for the wider community. – Yours, etc,
ANNE THURSTON,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.