Sir, – Susie Glynn (November 8th) argues that a constitutional referendum on gay marriage is not necessary because the Constitution does not define marriage or explicitly exclude same-sex marriage. However, it falls to the judiciary to interpret the Constitution.
In a succession of cases, most notably the 2006 decision of the High Court in Zappone v Revenue Commissioners, the judiciary has interpreted the constitutional concept of marriage as one that is limited to a union between a man and a woman. A referendum is therefore necessary if equality is to be achieved. – Yours, etc,
MARK COEN,
Durham Law School,
Durham University,
Stockton Road,
Durham,
England.
Sir, – Angela MacNamara (November 8th) uses quotations from sixth class primary school children being raised in same sex households over 30 years ago.
This was a time when homosexuality was illegal in this country. She is talking about a reality in a society that criminalised such people. No wonder the children had concerns.
We have moved on a long way since those closeted times and I know from my own work as a volunteer with a local charity that delivers mental health modules to secondary school students that children are far more accepting and open regarding the issue of homosexuality.
Putting gay people on a par with heterosexual people regarding their right to marry will be a further step in eliminating people’s prejudices and stigma in this area, so that concerns such as those Angela Mac Namara encountered 30 years ago will be consigned to the history books. – Yours, etc,
THOMAS RODDY,
Lower Salthill,
Galway.
Sir, – What we want is a world where children such as those who came up to Angela MacNamara in 1980, and their classmates (Letters, November 8th), will be taught during the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) class:
“Families come in all shapes and sizes, and may include: mother(s), father(s), stepmothers, step-fathers, adoptive parent(s), sisters, brothers, stepsisters, stepbrothers, half-sisters, half-brothers, etc. And the makeup of your family doesn’t have any impact on your right to equality, and shouldn’t have any impact on how people treat you, or how you view yourself.”
It is up to all of us to teach our children that there are different family denominations, but that all deserve equal rights and should be treated with tolerance and understanding. – Yours, etc,
ASHLING DALY
BOUKTILA,
Moran’s Cottages,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.
A chara, – Kieran Rose certainly did his best in promoting the re-definition of the universally understanding of marriage as between man and woman (Opinion, November 8th). Clearly this is not held by all, even the accompanying photograph disagrees with his thesis as it shows the hands of a man touching the hand of a woman who is wearing a wedding ring. Divine intervention how are ye! – Is mise,
Fr J McCALLION MPhil, cc,
Mountjoy Road,
Coalisland,
Co Tyrone.
Sir, – Revd Fr Patrick Burke (November 8th) displays a breathtaking ignorance of the history and evolution of the doctrines to the Roman Catholic Church. On almost all major issues the position adopted by the Roman Church has been transformed, if not reversed, over the centuries.
In such major issues as the calculation of the date of Easter, the celibacy of priests, the role of Mary, the status of the unborn (which once allowed for abortion) and the unbaptised child, the status of papal pronouncements, and many more, official doctrine has changed radically, often more than once. In many cases, those who chose to maintain their belief in the earlier doctrine were poorly treated, if not excluded from the church community.
As the Roman Catholic Church has changed its opinion on so many fundamental doctrines, I see no reason why there should not be an acceptance of a revised doctrine on marriage, to include same-sex couples. Hopefully, this can be achieved without excommunicating those who hold to the present version of approved beliefs. – Yours, etc,
GORDON DAVIES,
Convent Avenue,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – I’m disappointed but not entirely surprised by your Editorial (“Marriage equality”, November 7th).
Marriage in both the Constitution and the UN Declaration and Conventions is implicitly defined as that between a man and woman. Further the Civil Registration Act of 2004 explicitly defines it as such. This is hardly “a narrow and essentially religious definition”, rather it is universal and not specific to any group, religious or otherwise. It is an extraordinary contention, therefore, to suggest that a relationship that is clearly not marriage will “enhance and strengthen it [marriage]”.
The Irish Times wasn't the only media outlet to get it so drastically wrong with the Senate referendum polling in advance of the vote. I admire your confidence in the sureness of the polls you now quote. I just hope you get it badly wrong again.
Fifteen sovereign states introducing “gay marriage” – the majority European – is a miniscule number measured against the 200-260 states constituting the world league. Huge swathes of the global community, a considerable proportion in the Middle East and Asia, have not joined this elite division. Even the US reflects this proportionality. Has any consideration been given to the assimilation challenges this proposed new status will create? Integrating citizens from these countries into a society with an increasingly radical set of values by international norms is surely likely to be far more difficult?
Finally, on the role of mothers and fathers in bringing up children – another cornerstone of both the Constitution and UN Declaration on Human Rights – you contend that “nothing in this [gay marriage] provision undermines that role”?
In the year when we voted for a very important amendment to our Constitution to protect the child, do you not think a child is entitled to a mother and father in the shelter of a family? It seems you’re prepared to deprive the very child we profess to cherish the right to have a mother and father. Is that not the height of arrogance, foolishness and abusiveness? – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN KELLEHER,
Grange Heights,
Grange,
Douglas,
Cork.
Sir, – The Revd Fr Patrick Burke (November 8th) is anxious to explain the “Catholic” view of homosexual relationships.
He might more appropriately explain the no less rigid stance taken on this matter by the Church of Ireland – which, many may be surprised to learn, is the church in which he ministers. – Yours, etc,
RUPERT MORETON
(Revd),
Vanamokatu,
Joensuu, Finland.