Sir, – Dr Brian Tobin claims that marriage equality could easily have been introduced through legislation without the need for a referendum ("Fine Gael and Labour's approach to marriage equality was crude, uncertain and politically opportune", Opinion & Analysis, November 17th).
This conclusion, with which I and many others disagree, depends on a highly questionable reading of the Constitution and one particular High Court case. It also disregards a number of Supreme Court cases in which it was stated that the constitutional meaning of marriage involved one man and one woman.
Nothing now turns on whether Dr Tobin’s legal analysis or mine was correct. Nevertheless, as people seek to write the narrative of the marriage equality referendum, it distorts history to imply that there was only one legal view about the need for that referendum.
The politicians whom Dr Tobin criticises most likely were advised and believed that it would have been constitutionally impermissible to legislate for marriage equality.
My own sense is that marriage equality was achieved sooner because of the genuine belief on the part of successive governments that a referendum was required. This allowed Fine Gael, although internally divided on marriage equality, to support giving people their say on the issue.
By the time of the referendum, most of that division had resolved, with the Taoiseach and others campaigning effectively for change.
That a remarkably diverse cross-section of political opinion came to support the referendum is something that should be welcomed by those in favour of marriage equality. – Yours, etc,
ORAN DOYLE,
School of Law,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.