Sir, – Patsy McGarry in his report on a debate on the upcoming marriage referendum has misrepresented two things I said in my 15-minute speech in this debate ("Historic marriage equality debate held at King's Inns", February 20th). First, he reports that I said that a Yes vote would lead to marriage being abolished and no longer existing. What I said was that marriage, as it now is, and historically has been understood, as a union of one man and one woman, would no longer exist. Second, he reports that I said that other relationships, such as civil partnerships and guardianships, "cannot be placed alongside marriage as equally good". What I actually said was that "other relationships and family forms cannot be placed alongside marriage and the family founded on marriage as always equally good for family and children. No other relationship or family form . . . has the capacity to provide a child with a loving mother and father united in a comprehensive life-long, publicly and legally committed union".
Surely marriage as a social structure must be better than alternatives in some respects if it is to be given unique constitutional status and definition.
Yet the Yes side claims that all loving relationships are equal and all family forms are equal, and there is no ideal or hierarchy related to them. So how do they justify putting a definition of marriage into the Constitution, not to mention into the section on family in particular?
The No side believes that children have a right to be raised by a loving mother and father in a life-long, stable relationship, and that the institution of marriage, as it now is understood in the Constitution, facilitates and supports this. But the Yes side wants to radically redefine marriage as having nothing essentially to do with either the complementarity of the two sexes or providing children with a mum and dad. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN MURRAY,
Iona Institute,
23 Merrion Square,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Constitutional provisions are often open to competing interpretations, but there are limits to this, and helpful rules of interpretation have been established by the courts.
Bruce Arnold's opinion piece presents a highly implausible reading of the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage equality ("Referendum wording is threat to Constitution", Opinion & Analysis, February 23rd).
Mr Arnold’s flawed analysis cites a legal opinion that relies on a literal reading of a single word in the Irish version of the text to argue that the amendment would prohibit opposite-sex marriage. It is established beyond argument that where a literal reading would result in absurdity, the courts will use a different approach, such as examining the purpose of the provision.
To argue, as Mr Arnold does, that an amendment designed to make marriage available on an equal basis to same-sex and opposite-sex couples could be read so as to exclude one of those groups from marriage is exactly the type of absurdity that the courts seek to avoid. – Yours, etc ,
Dr CONOR O’MAHONY,
Senior Lecturer,
School of Law,
University College Cork;
Prof IVANA BACIK,
School of Law,
Trinity College Dublin; and
Lydia Bracken LLM, BL, PhD candidate, UCC Dr Alan Brady, School of Law, TCD Dr Laura Cahillane, School of Law, University of Limerick Eamonn Carroll, Noonan Coffey Carroll Linehan Solicitors, Cork Dr Mark Coen, School of Law, UCD Amy Coleman, Attorney-at-Law, Los Angeles Michael Connell BL Dr Vicky Conway, School of Law, Kent University Dr Louise Crowley, School of Law, UCC Dr Eoin Daly, School of Law, NUIG Professor Paul Daly, School of Law, University of Montreal Stephen Daly LLM, PhD Candidate, University of Oxford Dr Yvonne Daly, School of Law and Government, DCU Professor Fiona De Londras, School of Law, Durham University Aiden Desmond, Desmond & Co Solicitors, Midleton Brian Dineen, LLM, Dublin Dr Fiona Donson, School of Law, UCC Dr Oran Doyle, School of Law, TCD Mairéad Enright, School of Law, Kent University Dr Ruth Fletcher, School of Law, Queen Mary University London Dr James Gallen, School of Law and Government, DCU Diarmuid Griffin, School of Law, NUIG Kate Halpin LLM, PhD Candidate, NUIG Richard Hammond, Hammond Good Solicitors, Mallow Professor Steve Hedley, School of Law, UCC Dr Tom Hickey, School of Law and Government, DCU Mark Kelly, Director, Irish Council for Civil Liberties Dr Padraic Kenna, School of Law, NUIG Dr David Kenny, School of Law, TCD Professor Ursula Kilkelly, School of Law, UCC Cathal Malone BL Professor Maeve McDonagh, School of Law, UCC Simon McGarr, McGarr Solicitors, Dublin Dr Joe McGrath, School of Law, UCD Rossa McMahon, Solicitor, Patrick G McMahon Solicitors, Newcastle West Joe Noonan, Noonan Coffey Carroll Linehan Solicitors, Cork Professor Donncha O’Connell, School of Law, NUIG Dr Eoin O’Dell, School of Law, TCD Dr Conor O’Mahony, School of Law, UCC Maeve O’Rourke BL, PhD candidate, Durham University Dr Catherine O’Sullivan, School of Law, UCC Charles O’Sullivan LLM, PhD Candidate, NUI Maynooth Dr Aisling Parkes, School of Law, UCC Dr David Prendergast, School of Law, TCD Justine Quinn BL Nick Reilly BL Dr Sinéad Ring, School of Law, Kent University Keith Rooney BL Claire Scannell, Solicitor, PartnerRe Ireland Insurance Ltd, Dublin Dr Claire-Michelle Smyth, School of Law and Government, DCU Dr Fergus Ryan, School of Law, NUI Maynooth Dr Liam Thornton, School of Law, UCD Declan Walsh, School of Law, UCC Jeff Walsh, LLB, PhD candidate, TCD Susan Whelan, Attorney-at-Law, State Street, Dublin