Sir, – Mark C Hickey (March 3rd) insists that what makes marriage between opposite-sex couples unique is that these are the only relationships which have "the intrinsic potential to procreate life".
This is a common claim from those who oppose changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, but it is also obviously false: only some opposite-sex couples have the potential to procreate, yet our society has always recognised marriage between couples who have no potential to procreate, due to the age or infertility of one or both partners.
Presumably the existence of such couples does not come as a surprise to anyone, so what are we to make of the fact that so many people still insist on making claims about marriage which ignore these very simple, very obvious facts? – Yours, etc.
BRIAN CAREY
Clonmel,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – I have found Bruce Arnold's recent correspondence most confusing (March 3rd). Is he talking about Ernie and Beirt? – Yours, etc,
EAMON FARRELL,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Ian Kennedy (March 5th) calls for a "conscience clause", to allow those who disagree with the Equal Status Act to "go about their lives and business freely in accordance with the dictates of their conscience". Such a clause would be very disappointing to me, as a citizen of this republic who happens to be gay. I, too, would like to go about my life and business freely – free of the threat of being arbitrarily denied service based on an innate aspect of my nature.
Just when I am on the cusp of being treated equally before the law, Mr Kennedy would have the State sanction discrimination against me by anyone who objects to this status.
In proposing to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples, the State has sent a strong signal that it sees no moral or legal objections to gay people or their relationships; on the contrary, they are worthy of the full support and acceptance of the state. Why then would the State have any interest in sanctioning discrimination against this group, under any circumstances?
Mr Kennedy regrets “the growth of an ugly form of secular fundamentalism”, which he sees as limiting the free expression of his moral and spiritual convictions in the public sphere.
This is not the case. We are simply witnessing the end of an ugly form of religious fundamentalism which, in seeking to enforce its rules and restrictions on the whole population, regardless of creed, has made the lives of gay people needlessly difficult for far too long. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN WALL,
Dublin 2.