IIn his message to Catholics at the weekend Archbishop Eamon Martin warned against changing the definition of marriage as a union of man and woman. "To remove this specific difference is not, as some would argue, a development or evolution of our understanding of marriage" he argued. "It is, rather, a very definite break with human history and with the natural institution of marriage. We end up using the term 'marriage' for something that it is not."
It is the central argument of the No campaign but fundamentally flawed, both in logic and in its prescriptive requirement on the State to impose one faith on others. On May 22nd we will be asked to vote only on the legal definition of marriage, on how our Constitution defines marriage, what it specifically values and protects, and on an operational definition that sets the framework for the legislative protection of committed couples and their children, should they have them. We will not be voting on a sociological, theological, or philosophical definition of the “natural institution of marriage”. There is no one common definition.
The Constitutional definition, moreover, currently does not explicitly share Dr Martin’s insistence that the true essence – an “essential” ingredient – of marriage consists in it being a union which is “open” to producing children. If it did share that perspective, where is to be found any inhibition on the marriages of those who for one reason or another cannot produce children?
In backing the marriage equality amendment, voters will, rightly or wrongly, leave completely unaffected what Dr Martin would clearly see as an inadequate constitutional definition. They will not be making marriage less child-friendly.
We will be voting on reframing the State’s role in safeguarding long-term, committed relationships. And, rightly, voters will ask themselves is there anything voting Yes will do that will undermine those currently protected? In the US Supreme Court last week as it considered gay marriage, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg answered the question simply: “All the incentives, all the benefits that marriage affords would still be available”.