A lucid debate is vital ahead of referendum on marriage

Opinion: People who defend the institution as currently constituted are subjected to real hatred

Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 00:01

According to the Government, the citizens of this country will be asked to vote next year on our Constitution and society’s definition of marriage.

We have not yet had a proper debate on how marriage ought to be defined, and why. Instead, we’re asking whether it should be okay to brand one side of the discussion as “homophobic”.

A recent editorial in this newspaper asked whether it was not “legitimate, if not inadvisable, to be able to describe them as homophobic”. Presumably, “them” referred to the Iona Institute, the Catholic Church and anyone else who wishes to keep the current, long-established, definition of marriage.

In the past, to suggest that somebody feared or loathed homosexual people might not have been considered defamatory, assuming the word came over the radar at all. It is a measure of people’s shared commitment to tolerance that the term homophobic is not just insulting now, but also libellous.

It is arguably more libellous to apply it to a mainstream Christian or other believers whose support for the current definition of marriage goes hand-in-hand with the non-optional requirement of, not just tolerance, but unconditional love of other people, regardless of viewpoint, values or state in life.

In article 40.3.2 of our Constitution, the State guarantees to protect from unjust attack and vindicate the good name of the Irish citizen.

This guarantee is set out in the Defamation Act 2009 where a “defamatory statement” is defined as a “statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society”.

Defamation, in our jurisprudence, has been further defined as the wrongful publication of a false statement about a person, which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or which tends to hold that person up to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or causes that person to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society.


Irrational hatred
The term homophobia is widely understood to mean

“an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people, hatred and discrimination”. This is how the Oxford dictionary defines it.

In order to have a rational discussion some ground rules must be agreed. There is a right to a good name. That right is infringed when you use a term that exposes a person to contempt and wrongfully lowers their reputation in the eyes of the right-thinking members of society. Homophobe is a term which describes a person as having an irrational hatred of gay people.

It would be strange for gay rights supporters to argue that the term homophobic was not defamatory. They, more than anybody else, have reason to understand how abhorrent homophobia is. But it is perhaps those on the supposedly conservative side of the debate who have the best insight into how wounding and damaging it is to be called homophobic.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.