Madam, - Brendan Butler (November 7th) misunderstands many of the key issues concerning the debate on the proposed Civil Partnership legislation.
Firstly, the prospective legislation would grant far more than "minimal recognition" to same-sex couples and cohabiting partners. Both groups would receive significant financial and legal benefits with same-sex couples receiving everything but the title of married spouses.
Mr Butler also suggests that Cardinal Brady, in his Céifin conference address, argued against the proposed legislation exclusively on the basis of Catholic moral theology. This is not true. The cardinal supports his point with reference to the latest research on the positive effects of traditional marriage on the welfare of children and society.
It may well be the case, as Mr Butler claims, that cohabiting couples will be "up in arms" at the suggestion their particular lifestyle choice is not beneficial to either children or society, but their protestations would have to contend with the empirical evidence: the British Millennium Cohort study which found that one in four children of cohabiting parents witnessed the break-up of their family before the age of five, compared with one in 10 children of married couples.
This research receives enormous backing from studies in the US - to cite just one example, the research of Mary Parke in the 2003 volume of the Washington, DC Center for Law and Social Policy journal.
The crux of the matter lies in Mr Butler's assertion that all citizens should be treated equally. This is undeniably the case, but it does not follow that all social structures should be treated identically. Civilisation itself bears testimony to the fact that the traditional family model is the fundamental building block of society as it is the optimal environment in which to raise children, and the only environment which guarantees a child's right to have a mother and father. In fact, if this right is guaranteed only for some children and not others, how could we possibly say that all children are treated equally?
Therefore marriage ought to be accorded privileged status in law, unless one assumes that equality should trump every other social good - including the common good.
Why do so few people really believe that, on the basis of equality, everyone should have the right to adopt a child, including children themselves, convicted criminals and couples over the age of 80? The reason is that in some instances at least the common good takes priority over equality. The proposed legislation undermines the common good by diluting the privileged status of marriage. - Yours, etc,