Marriage referendum – countdown to decision day

Sir, – Analysts in the national newspapers at the weekend said the rural vote will be a strong No. Don’t include me in that, please!

I know lots of people in rural Ireland, fair-minded people who have a strong sense of social justice, who will not be swayed by arguments such as “marriage will be destroyed” and “children will not be protected”.

Are our marriages that weak? I don’t think so! Marriage will not be destroyed by the addition to it of a minority group. In fact society will be strengthened by drawing in those LGBT couples who want to marry and commit to each other as other people have.

Rural Ireland loves its children, the most important thing to us really. Let’s show the world that we love all our children, that we will not leave even one child outside the protection of the Constitution, by voting Yes.– Yours, etc,

READ MORE

ANNA MULVIHILL

Killeshin,

Co Carlow.

Sir, – Few things give us greater comfort in life than our traditions. Family traditions, those of our community and society, help give us a sense of belonging, a sense of home. Traditions, however, are not static; they are not set by decree, by government or religion but simply recognised by them. They are organic, they change as we do. Just as family traditions change as children grow up and new generations arrive so do those of our society as we develop and grow. While these changes are often gradual, sometimes they must be conscious and decisive.

Tradition is a poor excuse for not making change where its needed. Our traditions are that very thing – ours, ours to cherish but also ours to change. We don’t need to defy tradition, we are in a position to create a new one. Let us create a new tradition of marriage, one which will give us all a sense of belonging, a sense of home. – Yours, etc,

DOMINIC THURSTON,

London.

Sir, – It is a mystery why the Catholic bishops do not mention the role of conscience for Catholic voters. They certainly can't complain that their views are being ignored with The Irish Times devoting so much space to their strong No attitudes. In the ultimate analysis everyone has the duty to follow one's conscience irrespective of what any authority – including the bishops – states. Catholics do not leave their freedom of conscience and the right to self-autonomy at the door of their church. Rather Christianity should be empowering all to become people of justice as justice is the bedrock of society. – Yours, etc,

BRENDAN BUTLER,

Malahide,

Co Dublin.

Sir, – I hope that the marriage referendum succeeds so that our gay fellow citizens need no longer feel excluded. However, if the amendment is not passed, blame may fall on many of those in the Yes campaign who have behaved intolerantly toward those not of their viewpoint. There are many people – not all elderly, religious or reactionary – with concerns and difficulties about the proposed redefinition of marriage who are reluctant to express reservations because this may invite contempt, intimidation and abuse from Yes advocates. Every debate has two sides. Yes proponents should recognise and respect the sincerity of other opinions even if they entirely disagree with them. – Yours, etc,

CHARLES DALY,

Dungarvan,

Co Waterford.

Sir, – Whatever the outcome of Friday’s referendum, Irish society has been done a great service by the few brave articulate people who have argued against changing our understanding of marriage on television, radio and in print and social media.

It is now possible to say that one believes a child should not be deliberately deprived of a mother or father before birth, and that one believes the ideal family situation is where there is a mother and a father and not fear being branded an intolerant, homophobic, unloving bigot.

If, as seems increasingly possible, the proposal is rejected on Friday, what they will have achieved will be of David versus Goliath proportions, considering that virtually all the political establishment and most of the media coverage were heavily biased towards the Yes side.

Whatever the result, it behoves us to treat all our citizens with tolerance, respect and compassion, including those who disagree with us on fundamental issues. – Yours, etc,

PAT HANRATTY.

Dublin 14.

Sir, – So the glitterati in a simple statement, with no reason provided, are voting Yes (May 16th). All other contributors explained their stances. It would have been more appropriate for Bono et al to place an ad in your newspaper last Saturday. – Yours, etc,

NICK BUGGLE,

Arklow,

Co Wicklow.

Sir, – There really is only one way to vote in Friday’s referendum on marriage. That is to vote using one’s conscience. For, should the Yes side carry the day, and as recent episodes have shown, the ability and freedom to use our conscience again may simply disappear.

Now I know that there are some people who will need to resort to a social media search engine to locate “conscience” so I would appeal to people of reason to at least exercise that faculty before reason itself is wiped from the social makeup of this country. – Yours, etc,

PETER DECLAN

O’HALLORAN,

Belturbet,

Co Cavan.

Sir, – While I am a Yes voter in the marriage referendum, I do not believe I can turn a blind eye to what are clearly exceptional breaches of the rules to secure the result I want.

Regardless of which side one is on, the involvement of prominent bodies that are funded by the taxpayer to secure a particular outcome should not go unchallenged. As the taxpayer funds the IDA, a declaration by its boss that a Yes vote is in the State’s economic interest is, in my opinion, a breach of the rule that public funding cannot be used to secure a particular outcome.

If the IDA is allowed get involved in this referendum on the basis that it believes a Yes vote is good for the economy then there is nothing to stop it getting involved in future referendums on the same basis. What if we had another referendum, similar to those of 1958 and 1968, to change the voting system to a first-past-the-post system? Theoretically the IDA could use the economic argument to push for a Yes vote on the basis that such an electoral system brings political stability and certainty and encourages investors.

Of greater concern, however, is the involvement of the Garda Representative Association in this campaign and the fact that nobody on my side of the debate appears willing to challenge this unprecedented move. It is worrying that even the Irish Council Civil Liberties has avoided comment on this issue. Would the ICCL remain silent if this was the 1996 referendum to restrict the right to bail?

All Garda members are sworn to uphold the law impartially and fairly and it is not for them to challenge the law and call for people to change the law in this way.

The GRA says that it sees this as a moral issue not a political one. But no clear distinction exists between what is moral and what is political. Abortion, the death penalty, war and pornography are all examples of what many consider moral issues yet they are all are regulated through politics. If we were to accept the GRA’s argument then it would have the right to get involved in many other referendums.

We can’t turn a blind eye to what we know and believe to be wrong simply to get the result we want. Regardless of the outcome of this referendum, dangerous precedents are being established and may be repeated in future referendums unless they are addressed now. – Yours, etc,

PATRICIA McKENNA,

Dublin 9.

Sir, – Representatives of Aontas, an association of Bible-believing churches, expressed numerous concerns regarding what they believe might happen should the the Irish people approve the extension of marriage to same-gender couples, including the possibility of polygamy, etc (May 18th).

As a group of Bible-believing Christians, the correspondents will be very familiar with the Old Testament in which polygamy is a common and apparently acceptable feature with many of the biblical patriarchs having numerous wives. In addition, the patriarchs would also have had concubines for the purposes of sexual gratification (polyamory) and for the breeding of offspring. I am afraid that relying on the Bible to justify their arguments against same-gender marriage is, to quote the Bible, “to build their house on sand”. – Yours, etc,

JOHN GILLEN,

Skerries,

Co Dublin.

Sir, – The stridency and aggression of the gay marriage lobby, not just in Ireland but internationally, is truly one of the most frightening and worrying political developments in western culture in recent years. No dissenting voice can be tolerated, no alternative vision entertained and no alternative belief system respected without recourse to litigation, intimidation and frequently coercion.

It must surely be apparent at this stage that the passage of the referendum will pave the way for a wave of repression against freedom of speech and freedom of religion such as we have not witnessed since independence. What we have experienced during the course of this referendum has given us a brief but illuminating glimpse of what the future holds.

It is no accident that “tolerance” was not considered as one of the classical virtues. Tolerance, if let loose on is own and without reference to the genuine virtues such as justice and prudence, can do and is doing an untold amount of real damage, not least to the concept of tolerance itself.

MÍCHEÁL Ó LAOCHA,

Corra Finne, Co An Chláir.

Sir, – Perhaps you will allow me to make a brief comment on the responses to my letter of May 13th. None of my critics refuted the arguments I made, particularly my conclusion that Article 41.(1 and 2), if amended, would recognise a homosexual "Family" as "the natural primary and fundamental unit of Society", etc. Such a situation I described as "grotesque nonsense".

Even as it stands, Article 41 of our Constitution is a mishmash of high-flown rhetoric about (heterosexual) marriage and the family; an unsustainable patriarchal section about woman’s “life within the home”; and provisions for divorce. If the new clause is carried, Article 41 will be a complete dog’s dinner, full of contradictions. – Yours, etc,

JOHN A MURPHY,

Cork.

Sir, – A common argument from the No side is that a victory by the Yes side would mean a redefinition of marriage from its current form.

I most certainly hope that we as a nation are celebrating such a redefinition on Saturday evening.

I no longer wish to be part of a secular institution that excludes other loving adults on the basis of their same-sex relationships.

I hope we all have the courage to vote for tolerance on Friday and take another small step towards making Ireland a more understanding and inclusive society. – Yours, etc,

ANDREW MOORE,

Dublin 8.