Madam, - Michael McDowell's article in response to criticism of his rejection of the Labour Party's Civil Unions Bill (Opinion & Analysis, March 2nd) made very frustrating reading for two reasons: the inaccuracies it contained, coupled with the Minister's absolute belief in his own rightness.
His statement that the Constitution requires the State "to protect marriage between a man and a woman" is simply false, as the Constitution makes no reference to "a man and a woman". He went on to say he had been taking steps for the past two years to develop civil partnerships for people in all kinds of relationships.
However, even the Colley group, in exploring the issues, had to separate them into same-sex and opposite-sex headings. The problems these two sets of people face are very different and the solutions should also be different. It is not clear why the Minister is so convinced he is correct when many other countries, including the UK, have introduced a scheme similar to that proposed by the Labour Party. - Yours, etc,
DAVID GARRAHY, Ballymun Road, Dublin 9.
Madam, - In his column of February 27th, Fintan O'Toole defined "sleeveenism" as "a combination of cunning and cowardice, the sly use of low tricks to avoid facing up to a potentially difficult situation." He went on to accuse Michael McDowell and the PDs of "an act of supreme sleeveenism" with regard to the Labour Party's proposed Civil Union Bills - to wit, the Minister for Justice's proposal "not that the bill be rejected, but that its reading be postponed for six months".
Mr O'Toole pointed out that "six months from now, of course, there will be a new Dáil and all motions left over from the old Dáil will lapse. The effect of the McDowell amendment is to consign the Civil Unions Bill to oblivion without anyone having to actually vote against it. Fianna Fáil and PD TDs can go to the doorsteps, tell gay people that they support their right to equality and tell social conservatives that they sunk an attempt to recognise gay partnerships."
In his defence ( Opinion & Analysis, March 2nd), Michael McDowell states that "it would be a mistake and politically dishonest to accept the Labour Bill. It would be especially wrong to do so in the context of legal advice that the central scheme of the Labour Party Bill was unconstitutional."
If Michael McDowell felt so strongly about the demerits of the Labour bill, he should have voted against it, rather than kicking it into limbo. Regardless of which man is correct on the legal argument, I believe that the charge of political sleeveenism has been proven, based on the defendant's own testimony. - Yours, etc,
PETER MOLLOY, Glenageary, Co Dublin.