In his letter published last Tuesday, Senator David Norris suggested that I have derided the concept of liberalism. Although, for reasons of economy, I sometimes use "liberal" in an unadorned way, I frequently emphasise that, when I employ the term critically, I have in mind a particular breed, which I sometimes distinguish with a prefix, as in "pseudo-liberal" or "crypto-liberal".
True liberals believe in personal freedoms that do not hurt others, which implies having respect for different perspectives. Much so-called Irish liberalism dispenses its favours on a selective basis, without regard to how these may hurt either society or individuals falling outside the "liberal" protectorate.
Those describing themselves as liberals are usually either charlatans or radical individualists who seek to put society on a path defined by atomic rights, governed from witness-boxes rather than ballot-boxes. For the pseudo-liberal, perceived restrictions on personal freedom are the pernicious consequence of gratuitous and unnecessary intrusion by society on the "rights" of individuals, usually on the basis of what are deemed "outmoded" moral concepts. This thinking involves a new form of "morality" which, in holding that the promotion of personal rights and what is called "equality" will deliver societal order and harmony, disparages all dissent from its prescriptions as reactionary and retrograde.
Intelligent liberalism recognises that personal rights are mediated through the public arena, that each individual embraces personal and public dimensions.
Although restrictions on personal freedoms are sometimes gratuitous, they frequently express some societal interest. Often, even parties complaining of restrictions to their personal freedoms stand to gain from society's cohesion far more than they lose. Homosexuals may be justified in feeling restricted in this society because of its attitudes, but they are not justified in asserting that their exclusion from the institution of marriage amounts to an inappropriate and unnecessary restriction on their "freedom". There is no freedom denied them here - other than perhaps the "freedom" to satirise and trivialise the most fundamental institution of human society.
Marriage exists for the protection of the next generation. If there were no children, it wouldn't matter who lived or slept with whom. Because it is, ideally, in the marital family that children grow to be functioning members of society, it is in the interests of everybody, including the childless homosexual, that the institution of marriage remain strong and discrete, and that a majority of adults continue to choose married life and adhere approximately to its rules and mores. To portray heterosexual married couples as just another "interest group", inappropriately accorded elevated rights, is a distortion of reality. Here, atomic rights, equality and, yes, liberalism, must hit a frontier, and this cannot be avoided by simply extending to other "choices" the same fiscal and social privileges as married couples, but falling just short of some absolute recognition. Even if it were prudent to assume that the gay lobby will stop short of an outright rout of the normative, it is vital that the distinction between heterosexual marriage and other forms of union be clear and defined by positive recognitions and incentives. This is an example of how what pseudo-liberals call "inequality" can be vital to societal health.
Senator Norris seeks to suggest that I have placed what he calls my "grievance" about the marginalisation of fathers ahead of the rights of homosexuals. Well, firstly it is fatuous that the issue of fatherhood in society can be dismissed as "John Waters' grievance". Secondly, I neither deny nor apologise for doing as Senator Norris says. Fathers represent 50 per cent of the left-hand side of the equation of procreation, and their "rights" have a bearing on the outcomes of 100 per cent on the right-hand side.
If you choose to see this through the prism of atomic rights, you're still talking about, crudely, three-quarters of citizens. But it is actually absurd to depict in this way the labyrinth of inter-connectedness parenthood represents.
The Irish Constitution renders family rights "inalienable and imprescriptible" because the proper nurturing of children requires profound forms of protection. The problem facing the actually existing Irish family has to do with our failure, in a changing society, to understand the point of this unique formulation of rights. Regardless of marital situation, each child has a father and a mother, but the legal and cultural practice has been such as to transfer virtually the entire protection of the Constitution to the mother. As a result, one-third of children born in this State this very Monday will fall outside the protection of the Constitution, which in practice means they will, to a greater or lesser extent, be deprived of the love and care of their fathers. Add the child casualties of broken marriages, and it becomes clear this crisis has implications for over 50 per cent of children.