We are utterly vulnerable and dependent on others from the moment of conception. If we do not belong or connect as infants, we die. It’s that simple. Our relationships matter more than anything. Our connection to other human beings is of paramount importance; and is never more apparent than in the joy of a new-born infant arriving into our lives and the utter heartbreak of losing someone we love when they die. I have worked for close to a decade with people at the end of their lives and I’ve learned one thing over and over again; relationships matter. When people are dying and looking back on our lives it is rarely about anything other than their relationships that matter.
We are hardwired to establish and maintain relationships. From the day we are born, our brains are biologically determined to respond to the care and kindness of others. It is our capacity to engage in reciprocal relationships with others that provides the safety and scaffold that we require as human beings to grow and develop physically and psychologically. Over the last four decades there has been an extraordinary growth of psychological and neuroscience research concerning social connection and human well-being. The research is unambiguous – it is our social connections that underpin our psychological and physical well being. More recent commentators are also arguing that our economic stability is essentially underpinned by the same mechanism; social connection.
Our Constitution attempts to protect what matters most to us as a people. Our Constitution is essentially a body of fundamental principles according to which our State is governed. It serves as an overarching guide for our republic and in doing so it protects as well as limits. For, as with any human creation, our Constitution is not perfect. It is an evolving consensus-driven covenant of what matters most to us as a people. And yet while the need for evolution is inherent, bringing change to our Constitution is challenging from many perspectives, not least psychologically.
Changing our Constitution is challenging because it serves as the repository for many of the issues that we hold dearly. It contains many of the fundamentals that offer us a deep sense of psychological safety and reassurance, and so any attempt to meddle with it can threaten us. The Constitution acts as a kind of collective national family rule book about how we live together; we may not like or agree with it all, but we find it reassuring nonetheless and any attempt to update the rules has the potential to deeply unsettle us and illicit strong reactionary responses. Unchecked, these responses can polarise the debate and demonise those involved.
The weeks preceding most previous referendum campaigns have been characterised by heated exchanges that are often the expression of deeply held personal convictions. The debate taking place in the run-up to the marriage equality referendum is not, in many ways, any different. The questions at the heart of several recent referendums, including this one, tap into issues of fundamental concern for us as a people: issues such as family structure and the recognition and status given to relationships; issues concerning human connection that are of such importance they are offered the protection of our Constitution. Our human connectivity warrants the protection of our constitution because our survival depends on it.
Our relationships matter. Our Constitution recognises this and gives them special provision, and in so doing protects and supports them. Our current attempt to revise the family rule book is an attempt to accommodate the evolution taking place concerning gay and bisexual relationships. It is unsurprising that the current debate surrounding the marriage referendum is emotive, and participants in this debate holding tightly to their beliefs and convictions is to be expected. All those actively involved in the debate share one thing in common; their heartfelt knowing that relationships matter. That relationships matter more than anything.
Society is engaging in a debate about a historically vulnerable group of people and as such we need to exercise great caution. Our democracy depends on debate but not at any cost. We have to remember that it is just over two decades ago that homosexuality was removed from the International Classification of Disease, the guide used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental illness, and that around the same time decriminalisation happened in Ireland. The pathologising and criminalisation of homosexuality casts a very long shadow on the collective psychology of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in Ireland. We need to articulate our concerns but we need to do so with sensitivity, knowing we are debating issues concerning citizens of this country who were criminalised and pathologised until very recently.
Informed debate is essential to democracy. But the current referendum on civil marriage equality is not like other political debates and the tone and content have deeper consequences, beyond the headlines and sound byte. When it comes to a referendum on such a human issue as this, psychological research is particularly pertinent. Yet repeatedly robust reviews of psychological research, such as those issued by national and international psychological societies, are neglected in favour findings from individual studies. The misappropriation of psychological research in this way has far reaching implications, especially for the many children of gay parents, and the lesbian and gay adolescents and families who are at the centre of the marriage referendum. All of us have an ethical responsibility to engage in a debate that respects the hearts and minds of all members of our collective national family, most especially those vulnerable among us.
We are social beings with an acute sensitivity to our rank within the wider “pack”. The democratic processes that allow issues of central importance to be decided by the will of the majority can be a tough pill to swallow. We get scared and frightened when issues of profound significance such as our relationships are open to debate and change. And from this position of fear, a position which narrows our thinking and our emotional capacity, we are vulnerable to acting and speaking in ways which fail to acknowledge the common humanity of all involved. We can lose sight of what really matters.
The debate concerning marriage equality centres on human connectivity and as such it goes to the core of what we as individuals, and as a society, need and value most. The Constitution provides special provision for what we most value. We are simply being invited to revise the family rule book to extend this special provision to lesbian and gay couples. In so doing we will support and cherish that which matters most; our relationships.
Dr Paul D’Alton is a clinical psychologist and President of the Psychological Society of Ireland. He writes here in a personal capacity.