The case against gay marriage

Madam, - Child welfare is the overwhelming reason why the State gives special support to marriage

Madam, - Child welfare is the overwhelming reason why the State gives special support to marriage. Somehow or another, in the debate over marriage and the family, this central fact has been obscured.

Many people now appear to believe that marriage is chiefly about the recognition of adult sexual intimacy and that therefore it should be extended to any two people in such a relationship, including two men or two women.

In fact, society and the State have little or no interest in sexual intimacy per se. Why should they? What interests society and the State is what sex can lead to, namely children.

Once a child enters the equation, society and the State have a compelling interest in the welfare of the child, and part of that is ensuring, as far as is reasonably possible, that both the mother and the father of the child commit themselves to his or her welfare. Repeated studies show that children tend to do best when they are raised by their two biological parents and that their parents are most likely to stay together if married.

READ MORE

In his article in last Saturday's Irish Times ("Roll on gay marriage"), Quentin Fottrell points out that children do badly in high-conflict homes. True, but this proves nothing. We cannot know in advance which homes will be high-conflict and which won't be. What we can know, based on the evidence, is that children tend to fare best when raised by a mother and father united together in marriage.

There are obviously plenty of exceptions, but nonetheless this general rule holds true.

This is why marriage is both child-centred and mother-and-father-centred. If we allow gay marriage or a form of civil union that is marriage in all but name, the State will be saying one of two things. It will be saying that marriage is publicly supported in recognition of adult sexual intimacy and not for children at all; or it will be saying that children don't really need a mother and a father.

Neither of these changes would represent responsible social policy. Both would represent a switch away from the focal point of marriage policy: children. - Yours, etc,

TOM O'GORMAN, The Iona Institute, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.