Sir, – I'm really looking forward to the day The Irish Times adopts as its lead story the fact that State funding has been cut, again this year, to a variety of organisations in the community and voluntary sector that provide deeply needed services in disadvantaged communities and to children and families who cope with that disadvantage every day ("State cuts funding for Catholic marriage agency", May 13th). Those organisations include the one I work for. Since we support a Yes vote in respect of marriage equality, I suspect that it at least establishes that Tusla was not motivated in making its decisions by where anyone stands in relation to the referendum.
We have been saying since the day it was established that Tusla, the new Child and Family Agency, deserves more support than it gets. It has been underfunded from the beginning, and cannot do the critically important job it was asked to do without an increase in resources. Although I don't like it, I recognise that Tusla has no choice but to live within its constrained budget. That won't stop us, and many others like us, from seeking to challenge the cuts. We'd really be grateful for the front-page support of The Irish Times in doing so. – Yours, etc,
FERGUS FINLAY,
Chief Executive,
Barnardos,
Christchurch Square,
Dublin 8.
A chara, – Fintan O'Toole pulls no punches: "The big problem for the No campaign is that it can't say what it actually thinks" (Opinion & Analysis, May 12th).
That’s odd, because Mr O’Toole informs us in no uncertain terms what the No campaign actually thinks. I wonder where he found out? Aren’t we blessed to have him to sort it out? – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – In the last week or so, surrogacy and donor-conception have assumed a central role in debate on the marriage referendum. The No side’s arguments are based on a flawed account of the constitutional case law on the right to procreate, and a flawed belief that the ethical issues surrounding surrogacy and donor conception arise only in relation to same sex couples.
First, there is no constitutional right to procreate using donor conception or surrogacy. The right to procreate has only ever been fully discussed in one case – Murray v Ireland. That case concerned natural procreation. There is no case where the courts have defined "procreation" to include donated eggs and sperm, or the use of a surrogate mother. When asked to name such a case, it is notable that members of the No side cannot.
Second, there is no doubt that donor conception and surrogacy radically redefine reproduction and engage highly complex ethical issues.
Must a child be raised by his or her biological parents, or is it sufficient merely that the child can contact them as an adult? Does a child have a right to know a surrogate mother to whom he or she has no biological relationship? These are weighty questions, but it has to be recognised that these are not uniquely same-sex issues.
Allowing opposite-sex couples engage in these techniques creates precisely the same ethical dilemmas.
The legislature needs to face up to the complexities of surrogacy and assisted reproduction. Voting No in the marriage referendum will not serve to address any of those issues, or to protect the best interests of future children. – Yours, etc,
Dr ANDREA MULLIGAN,
Adjunct Assistant Professor
in Medical Law
and Bioethics,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – At the core of the argument presented by William Binchy ("Same-sex referendum Yes would affect child welfare laws", Opinion & Analysis, May 12th) is the suggestion that limiting without necessarily eradicating the scope to discriminate against same-sex married couples under the Constitution might be something that we, the voters, need to think about a bit more. He suggests that the Government does not want us to do this, predicting a politically correct future in which all sorts of freedoms – including freedoms to discriminate – will be restricted.
This is not the first occasion on which William Binchy has given hostages to constitutional fortune. In the aftermath of the 1983 referendum on abortion he predicted, confidently, that the Eighth Amendment would not be used to seek injunctive relief to restrict access to abortion services. That was shortly before the series of cases taken by Spuc to do precisely that. He also failed to predict the outcome in the X case that found that the Eighth Amendment, that he and others supported, actually provided for a right to terminate pregnancies where there was a real and substantial risk to the right to life of mothers including the risk of self-destruction.
When it comes to constitutional futures William Binchy is no Mystic Meg. His predictions must always be assessed by reference to the futures that he wishes – sincerely – to prevent. – Yours, etc,
Prof DONNCHA
O’CONNELL,
School of Law,
NUI Galway.
A chara, – Derek J Byrne puts forward some interesting views "as a gay man and campaigner for gay rights" in the online article "Same-sex marriage vote: Why I changed my mind from No to Yes" (Opinion & Analysis, May 10th) which leads, I think, to a very worrying conclusion.
He thinks “marriage, as it currently stands, is not a good fit for gay people’s lifestyles”. He thought that while opposing the referendum; and he hasn’t changed his views now that he supports it. He considers marriage to be “an imperfect, paternalistic and heterosexual social construct” which he abhors; in fact he has to grit his teeth every time he uses the term “marriage equality”.
So why should a man who sincerely and vehemently opposed this referendum at the outset now change to calling for a Yes vote, despite his continuing distaste for the institution at the heart of this debate? It is that he has been persuaded that a Yes vote is the lesser of two evils because of the damage a No vote may wreck on the psyche of the gay community. He does not think “that this referendum will bring about equality for the gay population” but that “a No vote will send a cataclysmic message to gay and other minority groups in Ireland”.
He is probably quite right about the “message” a No could send and it is quite worrying. The damage, I would suggest, would come because of the very dangerous tactic employed by the Yes campaign of making a rejection of the redefinition of marriage synonymous with a rejection of gay people by claiming there were no valid arguments to be made against this change and that, therefore, the only reason for rejecting it was a desire to perpetuate an unjust form of discrimination.
This may have appeared an advantageous strategy when it seemed as if the amendment being adopted was assured, as a way of mopping up undecided voters; but now that the result is far from certain, the risks of going down that road have become all too apparent.
It might, therefore, at this juncture be wise to cool some of the rhetoric in this campaign.
Those calling for a No vote have been endlessly told that if the referendum passes the sky will not fall; it is now time for those calling for a Yes to admit that neither will it fall if it does not and that a No vote does not mean the people of Ireland hate all those in same-sex relationships. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – The No campaign seems to believe that if same-sex couples have the right to marry, this will lead to a right to reproduce which will force the State to support them in having children using sperm donations, egg donations and surrogacy. This involves several giant leaps in logic and, most significantly, an increase in the number of women in Ireland volunteering to be involved in this process.
Married couples at the moment don’t have the right to state assistance in overcoming reproductive hurdles. Indeed, western democracies are struggling to draft legislation that is in step with science, ethics, complex situations and law.
In Ireland, rights guaranteed by the Constitution are tempered by the availability of government resources, the balance of conflicting rights and other factors.
I think that people who want children seem to have children, regardless of their marital status and this referendum will not change that result. I contend that while children benefit from as many adults supporting their development as possible, they need stability in their own lives when it comes to shelter, food, clothing and personal relationships.
All of this is very emotive, chaotic and besides the point because the referendum is about two adults contracting civil marriage. – Yours, etc,
SE LYDON,
Wilton,
Cork.