Madam, - The Labour Party's Women and Equality Officer, Kirsi Hanifin, would have us believe that the State should recognise same-sex couples as having a "right to marry" (October 17th). The fact is that it is not within the power of the State to do this; it cannot recognise a right where none exists.
Marriage is by nature always an exclusive, and in principle procreative, union between one man and one woman. The State has no right to change the definition of marriage in order to give to "homosexual couples" the same recognition it gives to heterosexual marriages. To attempt to redefine marriage in order to "fit everyone in" is to utterly fail to understand the most fundamental and cohesive structure of our society, and is ultimately a move to undermine it completely.
Preserving enshrined in our culture a true definition of marriage is one of the greatest gifts we can hand on to the generations that follow us. - Yours, etc,
JUDE MULLIGAN, Ticknock, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Society and its laws fully recognise and reward heterosexual relationships, in particular where there are children. Tax allowances, maternity and paternity leave, children's allowance payments, will and probates laws, simple next-of- kin laws, the list goes on.
I do not denigrate the vital role which heterosexual child-bearing couples play in society and its survival. However, as a working citizen and homosexual, I do feel I should have some recognition for my role in supporting the society that overwhelmingly supports the child-bearing heterosexual norm. I have worked for 12 years, paid my taxes, taken on extra workloads when my male and female colleagues are on paternity and maternity leave. I happily accept this responsibility.
I challenge Kevin Windle (October 18th) to define an individual's "benefit to society" and explain his view of heterosexual married couples who can't have or have decided not to have children. - Yours, etc,
COLIN HARTY, Killiney, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Andrew Larkin, (October 18th) holds that the State has an obligation to "traditional (heterosexual) married love" and no obligation towards other types of loving unions. Surely what is more relevant is that the State has an obligation to every one of its citizens - all of whom support the State through taxation revenues and all of whom are subject to its laws. What is regrettable, in this instance, is that the laws in question are founded on an unjustifiable inequality. The State is not prior to its citizens; it exists to meet their needs and serve their interests.
Mr Larkin goes on to say that "nature, not man, has decreed that a child should have both a mother and father". Indeed. But nature has also decreed that a certain number of those children will be gay. What is truly unfortunate is that those children will grow up to be second-class citizens, if the laws pertaining to the legal regularisation of loving unions, with their concomitant implications for taxation and inheritance rights, remain unchanged. "Is it fair to make children the object of such a 'brave new world' social experiment?" he asks. What a bizarre question. How, one wonders, are children the "objects" of any private union?
Homosexual citizens contribute every bit as much to the society we find ourselves in as do heterosexuals. The time has come to afford them the same chances of happiness and security enjoyed by everyone else. That truly would be a brave new world, but in the best possible sense for all concerned. - Yours, etc,
OWEN CORRIGAN, Blessington Street, Dublin 7.
Madam, - Kevin Windle reduces society to those who are baby machines (beneficial) and those who are not (less beneficial).
Now that is plain ridiculous. - Yours, etc,
PATRICK O'BYRNE, Shandon Crescent, Dublin 7.
Madam, - Allow me to suggest to Messrs Larkin and Windle that it is the family and not the breeding-pair that is the nucleus of our society.
Families come in many forms, both with and without children. It is through love (homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise) that these families care for and support one another. Recently, we learned of the gay man who gave up his job to care for his sick partner (The Irish Times, October 13th). Surely that too was "beneficial to society". - Yours, etc,
DENIS McCARTHY, Corbawn Court, Shankill, Co Dublin.