Sir, – Frank Farrell (July 17th) writes that marriage, a “union of a woman and a man ... in its essence, has been unchanged and unchangeable since the dawn of human society”. Is he aware of polygamy? Is he aware of societies such as the Chukchis of Siberia, the Iban of Borneo, or the many North American peoples in which the institution of the “two-spirit” or berdache flourished? In these societies, a man who took on a female role could marry a man who remained in a male role.
Most of the institutions of human society change, and marriage among them. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If people believe that there is no need for a referendum to confer equal rights on individuals in same-sex relationships as those in “married” relationships, they need to think again. The judges of the Supreme Court would interpret “marriage” as it was understood in 1937, the year the people enacted the Constitution.
The convention as set up by the Taoiseach to examine amendments to the 1937 Constitution may well make recommendations to extend the meaning of marriage to all persons in same sex relationships. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Patrick G Burke suggests (July 18th) that “There appears to be a drive to legalise same-sex marriage without the democratic consultation of a constitutional referendum.” It should be pointed out that democracy is predicated on the right of all citizens to equality before the law. Giving the majority an opportunity to decide on whether a minority should be afforded equal rights is not democracy. It is tyranny. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the (somewhat contrived) debate on same-sex marriage that is now taking place in Ireland, many of those arguing for its introduction point out that marital conventions differ from society to society and from age to age. There have been plural marriages, arranged marriages, child marriages, same-sex marriages and so forth. I think far too much is made of this argument.
Recently I spent a lot of time in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, a massive repository of artworks and artefacts from practically every culture and period – Ancient Roman and Hellenistic, Ancient Egyptian, Pre-Columbine American, African, South East Asian, and many others. I challenge anyone to walk around a similar gallery or museum, taking note as they go of the depictions of marriage, and continue to believe that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is simply one form among many, and that its champions are suffering from a parochial outlook. You don’t need a degree in history or in anthropology to see that the cultural relativists are getting a lot of mileage out of comparatively rare and controversial exceptions. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm and ideal pretty much universally; and surely there is a reason for that. – Yours, etc,