Sir, – Olivia McEvoy, chairwoman of the National LGBT Federation, argues that a Yes vote in the marriage referendum would send a message of inclusiveness to LGBT Irish citizens ("Civil marriage equality for same-sex couples would shape a new Ireland for young people", Opinion & Analysis, November 3rd) . The question arises, however, as to whether a constitutional amendment, which recognises same-sex relationships but which uses a new, creative language and not that of marriage, would send a better message to all Irish citizens and even internationally. By not confusing same-sex relationships as marriages, but by using respectful and ground-breaking language in our Constitution to describe them, we could act together in pioneering reform on this issue and do so in a way which is progressive and yet truthful and reconciliatory.
No other country in the world to date has allowed for same-sex marriage by way of a referendum on its constitution, based on a universal vote. Croatia, for instance, last year rejected the concept of “same-sex” marriage pursuant to a constitutional referendum put to a popular vote. Our country, therefore, has a unique opportunity to carve a way forward for all democracies that wish to be fully respectful of same-sex relationships while also ensuring that the truth, beauty and goodness of marriage between one man and one woman is equally cherished.
Seeking to have same-sex relationships treated as a marriage requires many caring and conscientious people, who have no difficulty in recognising same-sex relationships, to give them a definition which they know to be untrue. It is asking them to violate their own consciences or more particularly, three truths at the heart of conscientious reflection upon this issue. We are made. We are made male and female. We are made by a male and female. These are the three fundamental truths upon which marriage, as the union between a male and a female, are based. These truths are of universal application and cannot be changed. No amount of articles, interviews or international funding of the campaign for “same-sex” marriage in this country will ever be able to change these universal and timeless truths, which are self-evident whether one is religious, agnostic or atheistic.
Similarly, no amount of repetition of the “equality” argument will achieve this end either because it is not truthful. Relationships between two people of the one sex and two people of the opposite sex are profoundly different. Truth demands that they be named differently and treated accordingly. Truthful differentiation is never discriminatory. Equality demands that what you have for two, you must have for three or indeed, for more.
Instead, do we have the courage and the magnanimity to be truthful together? Can organisations such as the National LGBT Federation educate all of us with a new name and a vibrant, affirming language to accurately describe same-sex relationships which we can all support being introduced into our Constitution? Can we all work together to bring about a reform which is really innovative, truthful and of international value, based upon the unchanging reality that there are different sexual orientations but that marriage is truthfully for two people of the opposite sex? – Yours, etc,
PATRICK TREACY,
Stoneyford, Co Kilkenny.