Sir, – We need to ask the question why some couples choose not to get married.
Marriage is available to any couple with a few restrictions: age, familial connection and ability to give consent. It doesn’t need to be a religious ceremony and costs about €200 in a registry office, yet some couples make the decision not to get married.
This is particularly relevant when we consider that no one knows how the Supreme Court will interpret the phrase “durable relationships”, should the proposed amendment pass on March 8th. If a cohabiting couple who made the decision not to get married are deemed to be the same as a married couple, with all the rights and responsibilities that confers, consent has been removed completely. Couples will find themselves treated as a married couple when they have not given their explicit consent.
We are informed by Government, that this phrase “durable relationships” is essential to include lone parents and cohabiting couples with children in the constitutional definition of family. Surely something more direct along the lines of “the definition of family includes any household where the parenting or legal guardianship of children takes place” would address that gap without the unintended consequence of forcing couples to accept the responsibilities of marriage against their will. – Yours, etc,
VICTORIA FARRELL,
Artane,
Dublin 5.
A chara, – As pointed out by fellow reader Daniel K Sullivan in a recent letter, “In a referendum you’re voting on what’s on the ballot page, not what you imagine it could or would like it to lead to” (Letters, February 9th). This may seem to be stating the obvious, but it needs to be restated to counteract all the aspirational (but unsubstantiated) statements being made by the Government as to what wonders will unfold if we vote Yes and Yes. Constitutional amendments are hugely more significant than legislative changes and need to be treated with respect.
I fully agree with a wide definition of family and that carers in the home should be given support by the Government and by society. I will, however, be voting No in each referendum. No to the family amendment because I am being asked to insert imprecise, vague wording into the Constitution, and No to the care amendment because it is patronising and does nothing to further the rights of citizens with disabilities. It is at best meaningless and at worst throws the responsibility for care back on family members. My No votes do not mean that I reject the concepts, just that I reject the wording being proposed. – Yours, etc,
CLODA RYAN,
Dublin 16.
A chara, – Ireland’s Catholic bishops have advised the electorate to vote No to the proposed family amendment because they believe a Yes vote would weaken the incentive for young people to marry (News, February 26th).
But what if a No vote has the opposite effect and strengthens the incentive for older people to get married? – Is mise,
DERMOT O’ROURKE,
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I see that the Catholics bishops, urging a No vote, say that they are concerned for Irish women. At the same time, they themselves continue to discriminate against all women by refusing to allow them to serve as deacons or priests.
I was unsure how to vote in the upcoming referendums but my mind is made up now.
Definitely a Yes, to both. – Yours, etc,
JJ POWER,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – If the marriage equality referendum was being held today, would it be known as the durable relationship and marriage equality referendum? – Yours, etc,
BRIAN AHERN,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Ann Brehony (Letters, February 23rd) is correct that “the whole point of rights-based support is that the State would be legally compelled to have sufficient ‘operational capacity’ without waiting lists and service users would receive support on the basis of their need”.
Family Carers Ireland has, for example, consistently endorsed United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That is not incompatible with the observation that, where the gap between a rights-based objective and the capacity to realise that objective is impossibly wide (eg current labour force challenges), legal “compulsion” is unlikely to be as effective as sustained incremental progress – striving – toward the same objective over a period of time. I stand over Family Carers Ireland’s record in that regard. – Yours, etc,
JOHN DUNNE,
Chief Executive,
Family Carers Ireland,
Dublin 24.