Sir, – Archbishop Eamon Martin uses the "break with human history" argument in his plea for a No vote ("Changing definition of marriage 'not trivial', says Archbishop Eamon Martin", May 4th). So, on that basis, should we bring back slavery and the pre-suffrage role of women? – Yours, etc,
OLIVER McGRANE,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Archbishop Eamon Martin has asked what will the “church be expected to teach children in school about marriage and homosexual acts” if the Marriage Equality Referendum is passed. The answer is very clear – after the referendum Catholic teaching on marriage will remain exactly the same.
Regrettably so too will its teaching on homosexuality which consigns Ireland’s homosexual citizens to inequality and second-class citizenship. – Yours, etc,
EMMA O’CONNELL,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – The recent statement made by Archbishop Eamon Martin that the practice of the Catholic Church acting as registrar for the civil aspect of marriage may be reconsidered, in the event of a change in the Constitution, is not a cause for concern.
In fact, I see this “threat” as a “promise” to facilitate the separation of church and state, as is commonplace in many European democratic countries. – Yours, etc,
CONSTANCE MORRIS,
Shankill,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Archbishop Eamon Martin wonders whether, if we vote Yes, “the church will be expected to teach children in school about marriage or homosexual acts”. If I ever needed confirmation of my decision to send my children to an Educate Together school, it is clearly provided in that one sentence. – Yours, etc,
EMMA SIDES,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – I don’t know yet how I will vote. I do know that passing the referendum would result in a fundamental change in how marriage is defined in the Constitution and that accordingly, the special protection pledged by the State to the institution of marriage in Article 41 will apply to this new definition of marriage.
I don't know what the wider implications of this change are as there has been minimal public debate, rather a widespread advocacy by the main political parties and media in favour of a Yes vote, including a full-page article by Róisín Ingle in your Saturday magazine ("On saying yes to kindness", May 2nd). Róisín's description of voting Yes as a "no-brainer" aptly describes the simplistic assumption that this is the only way that anyone could possibly consider voting.
I do know that I really resent the implication that to even consider voting No is somehow regressive and intolerant. – Yours, etc,
MAEVE O’CARROLL
Killarney, Co Kerry.
Sir, – Brigid Sealy (May 2nd) makes one of the most fundamental points to have arisen in this debate – patriarchy opposes marriage equality, which should be a sufficient reason, at least for women, to vote in its favour.
As she points out, the “traditional marriage” which the naysayers idealise, has always been about property, not only the kind that can be passed on to the sons that marriage served to legitimate, but property in people, namely wives. This idea has been eroded in the West, not by conservatives, let it be said, but it is still in force elsewhere.
In a marriage of two men one party cannot be superior to the other merely because he is a man. If there is a redefinition of marriage going on in this referendum then it is in this, and it is welcome.
The naysayers are fond of predicting disaster – “Jehovah will send upon us a plague of red herring”, etc. Well, here is a positive prediction – equality of status between men and women in marriage will be made absolute when marriage between men is permitted. (I say “between men” because, hypothetically, marriages between women could be permitted but those between men forbidden, in order to maintain the superiority of the male partner in heterosexual marriage.)
One of the reasons why the movement for marriage equality is opposed so strongly is that it induces an alliance between two kinds of prejudice, misogyny and homophobia.
This has been a feature of this debate for decades, and while it may be civilised not to accuse individuals of harbouring base motives, not to acknowledge their presence is to strengthen their hand. – Yours, etc,
GARETH COLGAN,
Kilmacud,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – By taking only the words “Bye-bye wife, hello spouse” out of the letter I had written and placing them underneath Brigid Sealy’s comments (May 2nd) that “Under Government proposals, there will be amendments to a number of Acts to replace the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ with the word ‘spouse’”, an impression may have been created that this is something I am advocating. I am not.
I was simply pointing out that the logical consequences of voting Yes will be the removal of words such as “husband”, “wife”, “father” and “mother” from Irish legislation, words denoted by Will Dunleavy (April 25) as “antiquated and potentially damaging gender stereotypes”.
Whether voters will then feel happier and more equal is a matter of debate. What is clear however is that having marriage without a "husband" or a "wife" is like having Hamlet without the prince. What we end up with in reality is civil spouseship for all. – Yours, etc,
SEAMUS O’CALLAGHAN,
Carlow.
Sir, – A computer search of the body of Irish legislation reveals a total of 6,290 mentions of the terms father, mother, husband, wife, family. There’s one for every day of the week for the next 17 years! We are preparing to embark on a bonanza for our legal eagles, suffering lately from a drought of inquiries and tribunals. – Yours, etc,
Dr PAT SHERIDAN,
Waterford.
Sir, – Martin Shanahan of the IDA says that most multinationals would welcome a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum ("IDA boss says Yes vote in State's economic interest", May 1st). This was in answer to a direct question by your correspondent. When asked to comment on our national energy policy, a subject that may be of far greater interest to these multinational, he declined to comment. Has the IDA lost its renowned focus? – Yours, etc,
JA LILLIS ,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – American-owned industry is an enormously significant contributor to the Irish economy. American business has serious concerns about investment in states within the US that take a highly conservative stance on same-sex marriage and related issues. Various economically damaging business sanctions were threatened against the midwest state of Indiana from numerous business sources on account of a measure perceived as anti-gay. The key concern seems to be that gay employees in a recognised relationship will not relocate to such states, because the non-recognition of their relationship there gives rise to a host of problems.
I believe the issue of whether a No vote will be economically damaging to Ireland is not being adequately reflected in the debate.
US experience would suggest that it might well be and that it could influence a US decision on whether to locate in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN HENEGHAN,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – I find it very ironic that many on the No side are calling it unfair and an abuse of position for support for a Yes vote from individuals in certain public bodies such as the GRA, IDA and Irish-based, high-profile international corporations.
These same individuals seem to have no issue with high-profile organisations, such as churches and their leaders, calling for a No vote. Apparently this is acceptable, even when these organisations have very strict control over 98 per cent of our primary schools.
If it is abuse of power and position for high-profile people to call for equality then surely it must be an abuse of power and position for churches to impose a non-equality “ethos” in terms of discrimination in sexuality and beliefs on the vast majority of our children. Are the “mother and fathers” groups going to take a position for these children? – Yours, etc,
ANDREW DOYLE,
Bandon,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Will your letters page be clogged up with this correspondence until May 22nd? What is there left to say? Since on this date falls the feast of St Rita of Cascia, patroness of hopeless cases, I wonder who will be invoking her aid, the Yes side or the No? – Yours, etc,
SHEILA GRIFFIN,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.