Sir, – By taking their conscientiously held religious views into account when voting, Christians are no more “imposing” their convictions on their fellow citizens than are those who hold contrary religious views, or none at all.
Fr O'Donovan's contribution ("When we vote in referendums we legislate for all citizens not just members of a church", Rite & Reason, March 10th) distracts from the core issue to be decided in the referendum – how we as citizens understand the nature of marriage. Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution states that the institution of marriage is the foundation upon which the family is founded. Is it a matter of indifference to us whether this foundation consists of two men, two women, or a man and a woman? This is what we have to decide.
To vote against same-sex marriage is not, as Pope Francis has said, “to be ‘against’ anyone”, or “to judge those who think and feel differently”. It is simply to exercise one’s democratic right like everyone else in accordance with what one may believe is best for society. – Yours, etc,
Rev EAMONN
CONWAY, DD
Professor, Department
of Theology and
Religious Studies,
Mary Immaculate College,
Limerick.
Sir, – One of the leading advocates for a No vote in the upcoming marriage equality referendum, Bishop Kevin Doran, is quoted as saying, "One of the things I would suggest also from my own experience working as a university chaplain would be that many young people in their late teens are confused about their sexuality. Understandably I think. I'd have to say I was myself" ("Bishop opposed to same-sex marriage struggled with sexuality", March 9th).
The bishop didn’t say why “understandably” any young person, including himself, should ever have been confused about their sexual orientation, only that he believes it to be the case.
Might I offer a possible explanation for this phenomenon of “confusion” in some young people?
Young people don’t like to be ostracised and made feel different from their peers. Most pass through Catholic primary schools and often continue into Catholic secondary education. Many go to university and behold, another Catholic chaplain promoting Catholic dogma.
A good number of these young people are gay, lesbian or bisexual, but they have never had their sexual orientation or relationships affirmed throughout their education. On the contrary, the message about their sexual orientation is entirely negative.
They may hear it said “Who am I to judge”, but the underlying message is one of judgment – it would be better to be normal, to be heterosexual.
It is not “confusion” that most experience, I suggest, but fear – fear of being ostracised if they are true to themselves.
Granted there will be those who may truly be confused and who may benefit from therapy, but my guess is that most are entirely normal, healthy young gay, lesbian and bisexual people who only need to hear it said that their same-sex relationships are as wholesome and healthy as those of their heterosexual peers.
Bishop Doran might consider the fear he will perpetuate in some young people, rather than confusion, when he votes No to marriage equality. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN KELLY,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Fr O’Donovan makes the mistake of thinking that, insofar as the vision of marriage articulated in the Constitution is consistent with that proposed by the Catholic Church, it is simply imposing the latter on everyone else. The logical conclusion is that we should remove the criminal prohibition on murder to avoid imposing the fifth commandment on non-believers.
In fact, there are numerous reasons, of a purely secular nature, why the definition of marriage in civil law should be consistent with the rationale for the very existence of such a thing. The Constitution recognises this with admirable clarity by situating its treatment of marriage squarely within the section on “The Family”. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK CARR,
Drogheda,
Co Louth.
Sir, – Fr Iggy O’Donovan advocates a Yes vote on the basis that people should respect the opinion of those “who differ from us”. This is utter nonsense. For at least 2,000 years Christians have accepted that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That is the faith which Fr Iggy has been called to promulgate. He wishes to respect the view of those people who have no respect for his view.
In the light of the various sex scandals in the Catholic Church in Ireland, it is obvious and, perhaps correct, that the hierarchy has so far played a somewhat muted role in the run-up to this referendum.
This failing is a reminder, if we needed one, of why the entire pantheon of senior “princes” of the church should be removed from office without delay so that a new, untainted generation can assume the mantle of orthodox Christian ministry. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
A chara, – I very much appreciate Paddy Monaghan's contribution to the marriage referendum debate ("A Yes vote in the referendum will undermine the principle of equality", Opinion & Analysis, March 11th). I believe he is articulating the views and opinions of many in this country. He is of the view that this referendum will change the nature of marriage. Where is the harm in that?
Marriage is far from the idyll that many would have us believe. Marriage is, in my humble opinion, about commitment. Sometimes, as we all know, it falls apart, leaving all those involved injured and hurt.
However, I am inspired and encouraged that so many people have such regard for the institution of marriage that we want to have the same status as our fellow citizens. – Is mise,
TED O’CONNELL,
Cork.
Sir, – The Government has accepted, during Seachtain na Gaeilge, Bruce Arnold's counsel (February 25th) on the Irish wording of the referendum ("Irish-language version of same-sex vote text changed", March 10th). Through his intervention, Mr Arnold has done the State some service. – Yours, etc,
DAVID O’SULLIVAN,
Athgarvan,
Co Kildare.