Sir, – Una Mullally is a passionate supporter of the legalising of gay marriage ("Who does the BAI ruling on marriage equality serve?", Opinion & Analysis, December 8th). She appears to advocate that she and her fellow proponents of that view be given time on the airwaves unchallenged by those who seek to uphold the status quo in regard to the definition of marriage. This is a call for restricted debate or no debate. At the same time she asserts that "We need debate. But we also need truth ...", regarding a decision of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
One can argue as to the sources of truth but giving both sides equal opportunity in terms of time and representation is a necessary requirement for exploring factual and moral questions in a democracy. This is a price we pay for democracy. It has to apply in terms of a national referendum.
The Chris Donoghue example is instructive. He espouses one side and so any of his off-the-cuff remarks on the issue will be made accordingly. That is why people in his profession are required to conduct debate according to BAI guidelines. The guidelines are necessary, but not necessarily productive of equality. In some instances producers or presenters afford equal time to each side but line up three advocates of one side against one for the other. All this, of course, assumes the power of media to form public opinion.
There are a number of ways of conducting the national debate. Give each side equal unchallenged slots of time or have them put their case face to face, or some combination of both. But democracy requires that the equality Ms Mullally advocates in one instance must apply in all instances. – Yours, etc,
NEIL BRAY,
Cappamore,
Co Limerick.