Madam, - In his article "Why gay marriage is a good idea" (Opinion, October 10th) Declan Kiberd says: "It was the furtive, clandestine and illegal nature of of gay sex which often in the past militated against the development of stable relationships." What is his evidence for this remark?
In the UK's recently enacted civil partnership legislation the fundamental qualities of the marital contract, monogamy and permanence, are excluded - as a result of pre-legislative lobbying by mainstream gay groups. Why did they lobby thus?
What we should be pressing for instead is legislation that confers recognition and the various benefits presently enjoyed by married couples (e.g. inheritance and tax) to all lasting and caring relationships, including, but not restricted to, young and elderly siblings caring for each other. The respect of the law should be extended to all loving permanent relationships, not just those in which sexual activity takes place.
If a middle-aged woman has spent 25 years of her life caring for her disabled aunt, shouldn't the permanence of that relationship be recognised, applauded and encouraged by civil legislation, and such benefits and accolades not reserved only for those in a relationship involving sexual activity? It is love, care and devotion practised over many years that society needs to encourage by legislation, not sexual dispositions. - Yours, etc,
JOHN HUGHES,
Harlech Downs,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - Hugh Mullen (October 10th) makes an important point when he argues that the issue of same-sex marriage (currently before the High Court in the Zappone and Gilligan case) should be settled in Leinster House and not the Four Courts.
The catalyst for political movement in the area of law reform sometimes comes in the form of adverse findings arising from cases taken by aggrieved citizens in the public interest. In such cases - where parties act at considerable risk to themselves and, usually, as a last resort - the courts can tell the political branch that something needs fixing without actually fixing it.
This is a perfectly legitimate role for the judiciary in a deliberative democracy. - Yours, etc,
DONNCHA O'CONNELL,
Moycullen,
Co Galway.
Madam, - In his excellent column of October 9th, John Waters refers to the case of "two lesbians seeking recognition for a 'marriage' they claim to have undergone in Canada". It may seem a small point, but the two women in question "claim" no such thing - their marriage is a matter of public record in Canada and was conducted legally and properly according to the laws of that country; it requires no cautionary inverted commas.
Mr Waters may not like that fact, but for him to pretend that matters are otherwise is a retreat from reality.
Bearing in mind the above, I heartily recommend that your correspondent of October 10th, Mr Hugh Mullen, look to Mr Waters's column for answers to the questions he poses about that case. - Yours, etc,
PAUL KENNY,
Clanbrassil Street,
Dublin 8.