Madam, – Fr Vincent Twomey writes (June 29th) that the Civil Partnership Bill will force photographers, registrars and the likes to co-operate in acts they consider in good conscience to be morally wrong. What of the photographers and registrars who believe there is a morality deficit where the marriage of a Protestant and a Catholic is concerned? Where the marriage of a couple of different races is concerned? Are they being forced to co-operate in acts which they consider in good conscience to be morally wrong?
I would argue they are merely being prohibited from discriminating in the provision of services connected with wedding ceremonies on the basis of race or religious denomination. In this regard all the Civil Partnership Bill will do is prevent such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Fr Twomey’s attempt to portray a simple prohibition on such discrimination as something more coercive and sinister is disappointing. And the subtle implication that such conduct is prima facie immoral given that any objection to it is obviously “in good conscience” only serves to disappoint further. The spectre of the minority of secularists imposing their repugnant views on the rest of society fuelled by a “liberal-progressive” media holds little water.
A bastion of the "liberal-progressive" media saw fit to publish his article. Will The Wordbe publishing a response by Senator David Norris? Time will tell. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I find it extremely difficult to understand how Fr Vincent Twomey (Opinion, June, 29th) sees compulsory equality for same-sex couples as unfair for those who do not agree with it. In fact, it seems wildly ironic.
Discrimination does not cease to be discrimination simply because the perpetrator has a religious belief. Vincent Twomey believes that those of religious belief should have a “choice” when it comes to these issues – to me, this translates as little more than the right to choose to discriminate. No religious belief is above the law and no religious belief should afford anybody the opportunity to receive a “get out of jail for free” card.
I am assured that, in years to come, future generations will look back in disbelief at how our country permitted discrimination against same-sex couples for so long. Our Government needs to ignore the tantrums of the clergy and make use of foresight by bringing about this much-needed legislation that will mark a step in the direction of equality for same-sex couples.
In this debate, we must not forget marriage does not create a family. The Civil Partnership Bill will not create a family. Love is the only thing that makes a family, that keeps a family together.
Same-sex couples and their children are families too. The State is failing these families. Should these families not be acknowledged? Should the State not protect them? How long more will they have to wait for equality? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Leaving aside the string of non-sequiturs, hackneyed talking points (liberal media tyranny, etc) and the unforgivable presence of bullet points in Fr Vincent Twomey’s opinion piece (June 29th), his central objection to the Civil Partnership Bill appears to be that functionaries of the state will be obliged to follow the tenets of a law they disagree with. I sincerely doubt that every public servant endorses every aspect of Government policy that concerns them, yet (in theory at least) they follow it.
For my own part, I disagree with many Government spending decisions, but I pay my taxes. That is “democracy, Irish style”, and if certain learned gentlemen think that abhorrent, there are certain regimes in sub-Saharan Africa that they may find more amenable. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It is alarming to see how easily Fr Twomey and others insult the professionalism of civil registrars, and by implication that of all civil servants. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that registrars are lining up to refuse to do their job because two women or two men stand before them asking that the State should recognise their decision on how to live their lives. It is a recognition, not a blessing.
The Equal Status Bill has long been in force, and setting it aside to allow for personal interpretations would make a nonsense of it for every citizen. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Vincent Twomey says (Opinion, June 29th) that “conscience is the only bulwark against the totalitarian tendencies of all states”. Given the well-known history of the Roman Catholic Church, is he here insinuating that the church has no conscience or that totalitarianism is only acceptable when it is the church that is enforcing its own brand of totalities? – Yours, etc,