A chara, – Like Michael Austin (November 12th), I too hope that "the effort to condition" him fails but am hopeful that he may come to realise, of his own volition, that other people's understanding of marriage need not undermine his own. Unlike Mr Austin, however, I do not think that the letter subject heading "Same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron on the basis that the context in which we use language is forever changing – who would now expect one partner in a marriage ceremony to undertake to "honour and obey" the other, whereas not too long ago that was accepted as "the norm"? – Is mise,
GREG SCANLON,
Shannon,
Co Clare.
Sir, – Michael Austin(November 12th) takes issue with the “Same-sex marriage” letter subject heading. I take issue with it as well as it should be called marriage equality (which is what the referendum will call it).
Marriage equality seeks to recognise the integrity and commitment of gay people. Opponents ignore the social role that gay parents actually play; 230 gay couples parent, according to the 2011 census.
Separate and unequal is not a status a liberal democracy should champion. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Conor Farrell (November 12th) seeks an argument against same-sex marriage that is not fundamentally flawed. This of course is the wrong end of the stick. The fundamental question is why has a private relationship between two individuals any place in the Constitution. Its origins are an effort at social engineering based on the premise that the nuclear family is the ideal sub-unit of society. This idea has long since been jettisoned (rightly or wrongly), so the logical step is to remove this anachronism from the Constitution. All other matters can be dealt with by legislation and private contracts and the weapon that marriage has become can be relegated to the past. – Yours, etc,
CHARLES O’CONNELL,
Phibsboro,
Dublin 7.