Sir, – Conor Boyle (November 6th) asks if it is worth rewriting the fundamentals of the Constitution, "simply to preserve a traditional ideal of what marriage should look like?" In posing his question Mr Boyle fails to take account of the case law on the relevant articles of An Bunreacht, from which he would be left in no doubt but that the traditional and constitutional ideal has always been, and still remains, one man to one woman for life.
Notwithstanding that the removal of the constitutional prohibition on dissolution of marriage has, in practice, reduced constitutional marriage to one man to one woman at a time, it is still worth preserving as the best statutory institution we have for the loving and responsible procreation of children, and their nurturing by their natural parents in a secure, committed, and loving environment, so essential to their wellbeing and happiness. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL QUINN,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Sir, – Marriage has been understood for centuries as the union of one man and one woman. The idea of spelling that out would never have occurred to those who wrote the Constitution in the 1930s. Gay people in civil unions can have all the rights they need, or fight for them as fiercely as they seem to be fighting to reverse the meaning of marriage entirely. – Yours, etc,
MARIE MacSWEENEY,
Drogheda,
Co Louth.