Sir, – The light-headed notion of same-sex marriage being the “civil rights issue of this generation” is absurd. Appealing for a popular vote on such emotive and marginal civil matters is disingenuous in the face of so many other civil and criminal (such as banking) issues currently pressing in contemporary Irish society.
Politicians should not need to be instructed that they are not primarily elected to indulge or champion minority interests, laudable or otherwise, but the overall wellbeing of society. As it stands, the institutions of marriage and the family in the West, including Ireland are in tatters, thanks to politicians facilitating the loud whims of the few with ill-thought-out family laws and their interpretation.
Until Irish society addresses the treatment of men, being the natural cornerstone of a normal heterosexual family unit, as fathers, husbands and bread winners in the family law courts, instead of endorsing and enhancing the status of single parents, unmarried mothers and the sexual preferences of its citizens, the overall wellbeing of Irish society will continue to decline. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Frank Farrell (July 17th) says that the understanding of the word “marriage” to mean a union between a man and a woman has “in its essence, been unchanged and unchangeable since the dawn of human society”. This will certainly come as news to students of Ancient Rome, the very cradle of modern human society, where same-sex marriage was the norm for many centuries after the birth of Jesus.
At least two Roman emperors are known to have married members of their own sex, namely Nero (in AD 64) and Elagabalus (AD 220). Both marriages were marked with lavish public ceremonies and rejoicing by citizens, showing that these marriages were not viewed as being unusual.
Same-sex unions only fell out of favour in Rome once the influence of Christianity grew under the rule of Constantine the Great, which led to same-sex marriages being banned in AD 342. It is surely no coincidence that the acceptance of such unions has grown once again in line with the decline of the influence of the Christian churches.
There are many legitimate grounds on which to oppose same-sex marriage, but it is simply incorrect to suggest that they are without historical precedent in the civilised world. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Following Frank Farrell’s logic (July 17th), wouldn’t one plus one plus two equal four also? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Frank Farrell (July 17th) argues that the word “marriage” has remained “unchanged and unchangeable since the dawn of human society”. It is interesting to note, therefore, that marriage has evolved greatly over the history of humankind. Beginning primarily as a financial transaction or to establish strategic alliances based on property and wealth, more recent developments have expanded and enriched the definition of marriage to include remarriage post-divorce, civil marriages unrelated to religious sacraments, and even the notion of marrying for love – a far cry from a simple property transaction.
Mr Farrell might also be interested to note that the Oxford English Dictionary now includes “(in some jurisdictions) a union of partners of the same sex” in its definition of “marriage”.
The very fact of the matter is that Canada – and 10 other countries around the world – has successfully and legally argued that the word “marriage” can indeed encompass same-sex relationships. The love and commitment that same sex couples bring to marriage can only serve to strengthen the institution. – Yours, etc,