Sir, – Rónán Mullen's 900-word call for a "lucid debate" on the issue of marriage equality (Opinion, February 19th) spends, by my rough count, 840 words bemoaning the stifling of debate by his opponents, and 60 words actually alluding to arguments that could be made to support his position.
These arguments all refer to a supposed “redefinition” of parenthood by the marriage equality referendum; given a) the thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex parents, b) the proposed Children and Family Relationships Bill, which will likely deal with issues of gay adoption and surrogacy long before the referendum, and c) the existence of same-sex couples who (like many opposite-sex couples) wish to get married but have no intention of having children, it is hard to see this “redefinition” as taking place anywhere but in the Senator’s own head.
Might I suggest that if the Senator is so concerned with a lucid debate, and whether “conservatives” will be allowed to make arguments against marriage equality, he use his next opportunity to write an unchallenged 900-word article in the paper of record to actually make some? – Yours, etc,
NIALL SHERRY,
Upper Grand Canal Street,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Re Fintan O'Toole's column (Opinion, February 18th) and references to gay marriage passim, it seems to me the cart is being continuously put before the horse and that validation of marriage is continuously and mistakenly assumed to be the job of the State.
I think it is axiomatic that anyone and everyone should be allowed to get married under the aegis of an institution, religion or belief of their own choosing. Anyone and everyone, hetero or gay, should be allowed to confirm their love for each other and plight their troth in an appropriately solemn setting with the blessing, specific or merely understood, of some appropriate celebrant/facilitator.
That any institution of religion would refuse to marry/witness the marriage of two people who have sufficient care for, and belief or confidence in, that institution seems somewhat counterintuitive, if not positively oxymoronic.
On the other hand, that anyone would want the cold eye of the State to confirm their relationship seems almost perverted. The State is indifferent to the hearts and minds of would-be wedders. It doesn’t give a fig about the genuineness of their intentions.
Perhaps if we put the horse first, it could be that the State should have no say in a marriage per se, but that where two people, married or not, have taken on the care of children [home grown or adopted] it is the State’s duty, and in its interest, to provide for the safe upbringing and financial security if the relevant child[ren]. – yours, etc,
JOHN KIERAN,
Fortlawns,
Killiney Road,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.