Sir, – Breda O’Brien writes, in relation to the Children and Family Relationships Bill and the upcoming marriage referendum, “These provisions are quite possibly unconstitutional now but, by redefining marriage, we will stamp these new provisions with a seal of constitutional approval, and they will be impossible to change back”.
The constitutionality of a marriage contract, which is what we are voting on, implies nothing about what factors can or can not be used as qualifiers or discriminating factors in the adoption process. Religion, for example, is something that the Constitution is blind to when it comes to marriage, but it is a factor that requires highlighting during the consent process for domestic adoption in some circumstances. That is despite religion enjoying broad protection from discrimination in our Constitution. Other discriminating factors in adoption, income levels and poverty, are ones that the Constitution is blind to with regard to marriage. I could go on.
If the Children and Family Relationships Bill doesn’t contain enough qualifiers or constraints around the gender mix of a couple to suit Breda O’Brien, she is free to lobby for its amendment. However, I imagine she’ll need to bring more than red herrings to the table. – Yours, etc,
PETER KEHOE,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
A chara, – Breda O’Brien writes about what she considers to be the “inconvenient truth” about the upcoming marriage equality referendum. She reiterates her position that providing equal access to civil marriage will redefine the family. There are a number of inconvenient truths for Ms O’Brien which she omits in order to frame her arguments.
When referring to the upcoming Child and Family Relationships Bill, Ms O’Brien gives us a stark yet vague warning that allowing same-sex and cohabiting couples to adopt may be unconstitutional. This Bill is a different issue from the referendum yet she attempts to link them by saying that voting Yes in the referendum will rubber-stamp this legislative change and make it impossible to challenge. Why would this be unconstitutional anyway? The current situation allows for single people to adopt; if allowing single people to adopt is constitutional, then why would allowing same-sex or cohabiting couples to adopt be unconstitutional?
When discussing assisted reproduction, she uses the example of Dr Joanna Rose, a woman who was conceived by sperm donation, as someone who had the right to a parental relationship taken away from her.
This is of no relevance to the marriage equality referendum as same-sex couples are already allowed to avail of assisted reproduction and voting Yes or No in the referendum will not change this.
In any case, if Ms O’Brien is worried that children born of donors will be denied information about how they were brought into the world, it might be worth considering how heterosexual couples who avail of sperm and egg donations handle this. Currently there is no law requiring heterosexual couples to inform their children they were created using a donor. In contrast, every same-sex couple who avail of a donor will one day tell their child where they came from because they will need to once that child develops a curiosity about fundamental concepts of biology.
Throughout her piece, Ms O’Brien attempts to link the marriage equality referendum to having children despite the fact that gay parents already exist and that the referendum will give them no additional parental rights if passed. In fact she even confirms this herself, stating that “to give a legal and financial link to the non-biological guardian does not require constitutional change, or redefinition of marriage”. It is clear that parenting rights are a matter for the Child and Family Relationships Bill, not the referendum. Voting Yes or No in the referendum will neither allow nor prevent gay people from becoming parents. They already are parents. This is the “inconvenient truth” which Breda O’Brien chooses to ignore. In ignoring it, she is misdirecting the debate away from the basic question – should two people who love each other have an equal right to civil marriage, regardless of their gender?
Finally, as a teacher, I would ask that those who have decided to frame this debate around family rights consider the impact their words may have on children, especially those from “non-traditional” families. A child’s family is the basic unit from which they construct their self-identity and if that family is described as being of lesser value it may have an adverse effect on that child’s sense of self. – Is mise,
NIALL CALLAN,
INTO LGBT
Teachers’ Group,
Irish National
Teachers’ Organisation,
Parnell Square, Dublin 1.
A chara, – The marriage equality amendment referendum is not about allowing people to choose whom to love or with whom to make a lasting mutual commitment. People do this anyway. The referendum is about the kind of official recognition afforded those who wish to make such a commitment.
The right to enter into marriage in Ireland is restricted. There are 28 prohibited degrees of kindred and affinity for each party. Marriage may be invalid due to minimum age (18); or where either party is already validly married; or if either is incapable of understanding what marriage is; or if both parties are of the same sex.
We want to eliminate discrimination, so it is proposed that “marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex”. Marriage equality must mean that conditions for all are equal. Yet the circumstances are distinctly unequal. Prohibited degrees of kindred have a biological basis for a man and woman. Do same-sex couples want the same status? Then there will be restrictions with no sound basis.
Is that justice? Prepare for a legal or constitutional challenge. If we remove those restrictions for same-sex marriage, we must do so also for opposite-sex marriage. – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY.
Sandyford,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Gay people already have the right to adopt and raise children in Ireland. Voting No in the upcoming referendum will not change this; rather, it will – among other things – have the effect of clarifying any potential legal issues surrounding guardianship, should anything happen to one of the parents. – Yours, etc,
CONOR FARRELL,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”Only two? – Yours, etc,
BERYL SHANKS,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – The case for same-sex marriage is often promoted as a rights initiative. That’s understandable, but claiming something as a right doesn’t necessarily make it so. Last July the European Court of Human Rights found that there is no right to same-sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights, and found that article 12 of the convention, which deals with marriage, “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman [and] cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the contracting states to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples”.
It further found that no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN O’REGAN,
Arklow,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – I couldn’t agree enough with the sentiments of Mary Burke (January 24th). What child would chose to be reared with poverty-ridden, drug-addicted, alcoholic or homeless parents? Which child would prefer to be hungry or abused, happy in the knowledge their parents are heterosexual?
This dire future, of course, will never be suffered by children who will be raised by homosexual couples as they obviously live in the land of milk and honey. Not for homosexual couples will there be the constant daily struggles that traditional parents and families have had to overcome, such as poverty or addiction. How no-one thought of this safeguarding measure previously is beyond me. – Yours, etc,
JOHN CONNOLLY,
Galway.
Sir, – Frank Murphy (January 21st) declares any talk of “marriage equality” to be “dishonest and deliberately misleading” because anyone “with even a modicum of intelligence will see” that marriages between heterosexual and gay couples “could never be ‘equal’”. Circular arguments are circular because they go around in circles. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN HUGHES,
Rahoon,
Galway.