To describe a short person as vertically challenged is to use an obscure circumlocution, but there is no ambiguity, writes Martin Mansergh.
It is a drawback of many politically correct euphemisms that they rob language of its ordinary meaning. "Gay" used to mean a happy and carefree spirit. To christen a child Gabriel today might be very unfair to it. Fifty years ago, "queer" meant an eccentric and generally older person. It would be difficult to use it that way today.
I like the story about a co-respondent before a US divorce court, who, accused of "sleeping" with a beautiful film star, responded: "I assure your honour, I didn't sleep a wink." "Living together" is generally taken to mean cohabitation, which today has only one meaning. Yet both expressions should not mean any more than sharing a home.
It is common ground in most societies, and particularly in this one, that the family based on marriage is the basic building block of society, and most conducive to human health and happiness, and to the satisfactory upbringing of children. There have always been other valid choices, celibacy or single living, siblings sharing a house or farm, different generations of family living close to each other, companions for older people.
Societies and churches are grappling with the implications of the proliferation of non-marital sexual relationships, those living together before or instead of marriage, the divorced or separated, the single-parent family and same-sex partners.
Given the wide degree of toleration, the issue is what status, rights and obligations should be conferred by the State on the one hand and churches on the other on what is now a widespread social reality? It does not mean anything goes. Even in secular terms, desertion, domestic violence and infidelity are still immoral. Rape, including statutory rape, involving underage children, is a crime.
Irish society has dealt with divorce, by allowing it on restrictive conditions.
Remarriage does not necessarily dispose of obligations arising from a first family or marriage, but creates new rights and obligations vis-à-vis a new marriage partner. The Catholic Church recognises church annulment as a basis of remarriage. Other churches have lately become more accommodating of civil divorce.
There is a case that living together before marriage can contribute to wise choices, in full knowledge of the other person, and to marital stability. It is a moot point, whether couples who are free to marry but choose for the time being not to do so, should be saddled with quasi-marital rights, obligations and responsibilities that they may not want.
When there is responsibility for children, there is a different situation. Whether there would be benefit in reviving the concept of common law marriage is perhaps something that should be explored. There is an argument that lifelong or long-term relationships should be provided with some safety net in the event of an unexpected death.
The situation of same-sex couples is different from other cases mentioned, as the option of marriage under the law and constitution of most states is excluded. While personal happiness and loving relationships are important, it would be difficult to argue that, even if same-sex relationships could be institutionalised, they would have the same social value or utility as a marriage capable of procreation and rearing children, or even that same-sex couples could on average be equally satisfactory as adoptive parents.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1789 to a French friend that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes". The fiscal dimension of morality and of social relationships is huge. Married couples can pass on property to each other, without tax. While the tax code is generous in its treatment of property passed on to offspring, including "favourite nieces and nephews", especially farms and family businesses, it is harder on siblings and other relations.
It is particularly hard in terms of low tax thresholds on property passing to blood strangers, who may be very close to each other. In the case of young people without property who may have intended to get married, that is of less consequence. But in other situations it could be quite disruptive.
Most people these days, even of a conservative religious disposition, have no great difficulty privately tolerating, acquiescing in, and, where necessary, even supporting other people's relationships. Someone can belong to the church of Archbishop Lefèvbre, and still be personally kind and tolerant of the great variety of human situations to be encountered even within their own family. It is another thing to ask people to give formal public sanction, approval and incentives to private relationships in a manner that would put them on, or close, to, a par with marriage.
Much of the problem is created by the modern habit of treating sexuality as the key validation of relationships, and relegating to second place all other aspects and indeed relationships that have no sexual content. Arguably, those who live together on a long-term basis in the same dwelling, outside of a marital or child-parent relationship, whether as siblings, friends, companions or partners, should be treated by the law, the tax system and society the same way, regardless of whether a sexual relationship is involved, which, within the limits of the law, should be of no interest to the State. That is where I disagree with the Law Reform Commission Report on rights and duties of cohabitees.
It is friendship, partnership, companionship, and caring that we should encourage and privilege. That is the basis on which public support and consensus for extending reform can be mustered, even if it is more complicated than simply establishing a sexual relationship as a basis of rights.