Sir, – Think of the number of social transformations past generations of conservative Christians have opposed over the last 120 years. These social revolutions include free secondary education for all children, equal civil rights for all citizens irrespective of their race or religion, equal pay for equal work, the right of employees to unionise, the payment of social welfare to lone parents, the validity of inter-faith marriage, the right to use contraceptives, and so on. Most of the current conservatives who rail against marriage equality would now uphold each of these principles of social justice. In the past, as now, conservative Christians invoked “tradition” and “conscience” as the bases of their opposition.
A call to legislate for conscientious exemption for these conservative Christians regarding providing goods and service to same-sex couples has no legal precedent and would be an affront to civil society.
In the fullness of time, hopefully in May 2015, marriage equality will become a reality; Ireland will become a little more aware of what it means to cherish all our citizens equally and will be less fearful of social difference; and when the next generation is confronted with challenges to its assumptions about the “natural order” of society, it will rediscover with amazement our current struggles.
Living in a democracy is a privilege and it’s not easy to discern where and when to “render unto Caesar the things that that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”; whether it’s the nature of our social constructs, how we dispose of our waste in the environment, where we trade and invest, how we manage relations between the powerful and the powerless and the other endless dilemmas confronting us as moral beings.
This referendum is not just about individuals making choices about how to treat LGBT people; it’s much more about what kind of a society we want. Living in a democracy means that citizens need to trust and believe in the process, despite its failings. Being granted what amounts to a licence to practice prejudice is not an option for our society.
Christians have always “suffered for their faith” so, if discriminating against gays is a conscientious position for some Christians, then they will have to take the consequences. But in the event that the Yes vote prevails, most Christians will sincerely hope that pastoral support is given to believers who will struggle to come to terms with a new reality in our story of progress toward social justice. – Yours, etc,
PATRICIA DEVLIN,
Monasterevin,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – In redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage, we are opening a cash machine for barristers, as much of our present legislation will be open to challenge. – Yours, etc,
NUALA NOLAN,
Galway.
Sir, – Stephen Wall (March 21st) argues that I am mistaken in asserting that either a Yes or No outcome on the marriage referendum would equally result in one set of convictions about marriage being imposed by the state on all. He insists that the enshrinement of same-sex marriage rights in our Constitution would accommodate both sets of convictions, seeing as "anyone who feels morally or religiously prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex will remain free not to do so".
It is true that the passage of this referendum would not prevent people individually and as couples from honouring traditional conceptions of marriage. However, direct coercion and penalisation is only one aspect of the imposition of morality. Another aspect is the way in which the law can fundamentally reshape a society’s self-understanding and values. In this particular case, a Yes vote will fundamentally redefine the legal and (sooner or later) cultural meaning of marriage in Ireland, and in this sense will clearly impose one set of convictions upon everyone, as I wrote on March 20th, “about how our society should be organised and how marriage . . . should be conceived in the public square”. On the question of same-sex marriage, there is no such thing as a stance that equally “accommodates” different convictions about the meaning of marriage. One set of convictions will win the majority of votes, and get enshrined in law, and be imposed on everyone. That is how democracy works, whether Stephen Wall, or anyone else, likes it or not. – Yours, etc,
DAVID THUNDER,
Pamplona, Spain.