24
marriage referendum arguments for ‘yes’
The Mayo News • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
arguments for ‘yes’ marriage referendum
Tuesday, may 19, 2015 • The Mayo News
‘Why should our son’s love be
seen any differently to ours?’
Frank and Anne
Chambers from
Newport on why
they will be voting
‘Yes’ on Friday
Edwin
mcgreal
[email protected]
F
“We just want to be treated equally,
that mine and my partner Graeme’s relationship, we’ve been together ten years,
is seen the same as that of my brother
and his girlfriend of five years is treated,”
said Francis.
He speaks of the 160 differences between
civil partnership and civil marriages in
Ireland.
“That day (the civil partnership ceremony) was very special to us and it was
a day of love and celebration but there
are a lot of rights and protections from
marriage that we do not have under civil
partnership,” explained Francis.
rank Chambers from Newport
and Anne Gallagher from Currane, Achill met in Tiernaur
Hall 36 years ago. Two years
later they were married. That
the same right is afforded to their eldest
son Francis is a source of anguish to
them.
“We got married because we love one
another and we would like Francis and
every other young person like Francis
to have the same chance for happiness
as we have. We feel that marriage is, first
of all, about love,” said Anne.
“We’ve two boys and we’re very proud
of them and we don’t see why one should
be any different than the other. They’re
not any different in God’s eyes and I
think God would like us to vote yes,”
added Frank, sitting in the kitchen of
their home at Knockbreaga, Newport.
Francis committed to his long-term
partner Graeme Fisher in a civil partnership ceremony in 2012 but as they are
unable to marry currently, he feels ‘less
than’ and unequal.
‘God’s people’
Religion plays a big role in the Chambers house. Frank, Anne and Francis all
have strong faith.
“Voting yes would send out a big message to young people struggling with
who they are and I’d like people to consider that and I’d just like the good priests
to say something at Mass to help people
who are unsure to vote yes and do the
right thing. They’re God’s people, the
same as everybody else. It’s right to vote
yes,” said Frank.
And Anne, who was a national school
teacher for forty years, takes issue with
the commentary among many on the no
side that same sex parents cannot be as
good parents as a conventional mother
and father.
“We were dealing with children from
all family backgrounds and the one key
element in a child’s life to help them
succeed is to know that they were
loved.
“I think we need to show people the
way forward and this is a perfect opportunity for people to show we can treat
everyone with dignity and respect and
to show their love for one another and
I would, as a parent, ask anyone who
may be as yet undecided that they would
help us, help Francis and young people
like Francis, by marking yes on the white
paper on May 22,” said Anne.
The Chambers family candidly recall
the period around Francis coming out
in 2001 as a troubling time.
“We were heartbroken because that
wasn’t what we had planned for him and
then we were very anxious that he might
have a very lonely life. We did feel a bit
alone because we wouldn’t have known
anybody else in the same situation,”
recalls Anne, a daughter of former TD
Denis Gallagher.
Francis admits he went through a huge
personal crisis at the time – which nearly
had a tragic end.
“I ended up in hospital on Christmas
Eve, 2000 for attempted suicide,” said
Francis. “I hadn’t told my parents at that
time because I thought it would be harder
for them to accept than me. I couldn’t
accept it myself either.
“Being a person who has experienced
depression purely because you think
you are less in society and to see a lot
of talk about children in this referendum
debate … Well we are children too and
that’s what this referendum is about, us
the children and grandchildren and
< FRANKLY
SPEAKING Francis
Chambers (centre) pictured
with his parents Frank and
Anne at the family home
outside Newport last week.
A ‘No’ vote would be ‘devastating’ - Rory O’Neill
Ciara
Galvin
[email protected]
BALLINROBE native and accidental gay rights activist Rory
O’Neill has said it will be ‘crushing’ and ‘devastating’ if the marriage referendum doesn’t pass.
In an excerpt from a candid
interview which will feature in
a documentary, ‘Queen of Ireland’ about he and his alter ego
Panti Bliss, Rory spoke about
what a majority ‘No’ vote would
mean for the LGBT people of
Ireland.
He explained that it would not
be crushing that he would not
be able to get married, but that
‘the people will have spoken’ and
they will have said ‘actually no,
that there’s a limit of our acceptance to you’’.
The bar owner continued;
“There’s a limit to our respect
for you and you’ve reached that
limit … and we don’t actually
think you’re the same as us and
I don’t think you should be a full
and equal citizen.”
O’Neill said the referendum is
Your views
Letter to the editor
nieces and nephews and brothers and
sisters of people,” he said.
‘Heartbreaking’
‘powerfully personal’ because
all the people in the country ‘got
together and decided you’ve
reached your place in society’.
He added that gay people in Ireland would take it ‘horribly personally’.
Speaking about the aftermath
of the referendum if it doesn’t
pass, Rory said that though he
won’t think of moving away, he
thinks lots of young people will
as a result.
< ADVOCATING A YES
VOTE Ballinrobe’s Rory O’Neill.
Headford group sing ‘Yes’
ahead of referendum
Ciara Galvin
T
HE group behind
the water protest
song ‘No privatisation, Irish Water,
Irish Nation’ has
penned a marriage referendum
song.
Headford ensemble ‘The Rolling Tav Revue’ have put pen to
paper and picked up their instru-
ments for ‘Everybody’s Voting
Yes’.
Speaking to The Mayo News,
Donal Gibbons said the song
came about after a recent gig in
Campbell’s Tavern in Cloghanover, Headford.
“We were having a chat after
the last Bank Holiday gig we did
and the referendum came up.
We all just said ‘Everybody
should vote yes’ and then we
put a melody to it and it grew
into a song. There’s no agenda
25
we’re just a bunch of lads saying
what we think,” explained Donal.
Lyrics of the song include, ‘John
put on your party dress, we’re
heading to the wedding of Teresa and Jess’.
The video was shot in the infamous Campbell’s Tavern kitchen
a number of days after the song
was created. Since the video was
uploaded to YouTube the video
has gained close to 7,000 views.
The group’s previous song about
Irish Water gained close to 90,000
views on the video sharing site
since last December.
“We just talk about different
things, a bit of a social commentary, there’s not many people
doing that anymore. It’s important to raise these issues, it’s not
a case of doing a song to be cool,”
said the musician.
The song is performed by
Donal, Aindrias De Staic, Noelie
McDonnell, Liam Ivory, Eímhin
Cradock, Geoff Ward and William Merrigan.
Dear Sir
I would like to thank those members of the clergy
who have not felt compelled to tell me how I should
vote in the upcoming referendum. I am deeply disappointed yet again that some members of the Catholic
Hierarchy and Faith have still not learned to listen
to the lived experience of many of its flock. I am a difficult Catholic for deeply personal reasons
that have had a profound impact on my capacity to
practice my faith safely. However my faith cannot be
taken from me or indeed my Catholicism. As the
privileged and honoured parent of a Gay son, I celebrate his difference and sameness. I am so struck
with the lack of understanding of the unconditionality and wisdom of Parental Love by elements of the
‘No Campaign’. In particular even if I reduce any God of my understanding to that of a loving human parent, under no
circumstances does exclusion of any sort or on any
basis carry any weight for any reason. I do not need
statistics or experts or research to tell me what is
right or wrong. There are not degrees of inclusion.
Voting No in the upcoming referendum is a vote to
exclude.
As Rory O’Neill so eloquently and simply put it, it is
personal.
A No vote is excluding the Gay uncle, aunt, sister,
brother, son, daughter or grandchild in all our families from exercising a civil right. I will take it personally if my son is excluded from partaking in a civil
marriage in his birth country. Love and exclusion do
not go together. We understand difference and equality and we know exclusion even when it is spoken
with deft and clever words. It cannot be hidden. When I heard on the news that several Bishops had
felt it necessary through a letter to encourage a No
vote in a civil matter, my heart went out immediately
to those young people in the congregation struggling
with their sexuality.
Just when it has become slightly easier to be Gay, the
words of exclusion and judgement again from a pulpit. I also thought of those of my peers who have had
to live elsewhere and who have never been able to
be themselves in their own country, or able to come
out to their parents, and then I thought of those who
have in the past had to take their Gayness to the
graves with them unable ever to live fully the live
that was given to them. I thought we were done with the politics of exclusion. The fear mongering rhetoric I have heard over
the last few days is deeply concerning. I thank Mary
Mc Aleese and Tom Curran for standing so well
beside their sons.
I believe in Marriage but respecting and strengthening it does not mean excluding. Children need loving
parents more than anything else. I am as I said privileged in the deepest sense of the word to be the parent of a Gay son.
I am grateful that he had the freedom to come out
when he did. I feel proud that I did something right
in the huge challenge of parenting, so that he was
able to come out to himself most importantly and to
those he chooses to. What an honour and what a
relief. I shudder to think of the secret life he might
have endured like so many of our people. He has
chosen to live out of this country whilst his reasons
may not be entirely to do with his orientation, I was
relieved for him that he is somewhere it is easier to
be gay. I was also indeed helped by a Catholic Priest
at the time whom I spoke to who told me when I was
very scared for him ‘to go home and love him’. Love
does not exclude. I salute those who live their Gay lives in Ireland and
particularly rural Ireland. I want for my son, what
his sibling will over the summer partake in, a civil
marriage. Please consider those in all our families
who may be struggling and consider the message a
No vote will mean to them. I thank both of my adult
children for their honesty and ongoing openess and
for all I have learned about what it is to love a child
and bring them safely to adulthood,
Yours sincerely,
Ruth MacNeely
26
marriage referendum arguments for ‘No’
The Mayo News • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
arguments for ‘No’ marriage referendum
Tuesday, may 19, 2015 • The Mayo News
Referendum about more
than ‘I do’ - Mothers and
Fathers Matter
Anton
McNulty
[email protected]
T
HE people of Ireland are being misled and patronised
by the Yes campaign to believe
that the marriage referendum
is about ‘love and equality’ and
not about ‘the family’ according
to organisation, Mothers and
Fathers Matter.
The group, who are advocating a No vote in Friday’s Marriage Equality Referendum,
were in Castlebar last week
where they gave a talk entitled
‘In Defence of Marriage’ in the
Welcome Inn Hotel.
The main speaker was Kate
Bopp, a spokesperson for Mothers and Fathers Matter, who
told the people in attendance
that the marriage referendum
was ‘far more than simple redefining marriage’.
“Government and Yes campaigners want the public to
believe that the Marriage Referendum is necessary to provide
couples in same-sex relationships with legal security and
State recognition. But this is
untrue. Couples in same-sex
relationships can already avail
of civil partnerships. Civil Partnerships provide same-sex
couples with virtually all the
rights and entitlements that
married couples enjoy.
“There is no significant difference in law between the two.
Civil partnership ceremonies
are practically identical to civil
marriage ceremonies – down
to the saying of ‘I do’. Same-sex
couples have vastly more legal
protections that other categories of co-dependent adult, such
as elderly siblings living together
or carers and careers living
together,” she said.
Simplifying the vote
Speaking to The Mayo News
prior to the meeting, Ms Bopp
said she was critical of the Yes
campaign for claiming the No
side was trying to prevent samesex couple from being together
“
It diminishes
the role
of the
Taoiseach
for him to
be making
hallmark
card type
comments.
- Kate Bopp
and simplifying the vote as one
about love and equality.
“There is a lot more to this
than about people being in love
and saying I do. We are being
misled and patronised to believe
the change in the constitution
is essentially about romance
and people being in love. It
diminishes the role of the Taoiseach for him to be making
hallmark card type comments.
The Taoiseach has been in
politics for over 40 years and
I’m sure his understanding of
the constitution is not backward
to think the change in the constitution is simplified by
romance,” she said.
Ms Bopp denied that the No
campaign was scaremongering
but based on evidence where
same sex marriage legislation
has been passed in other jurisdictions. She said in these countries laws on surrogacy had to
be changed and she believes if
the referendum is passed, laws
on assisted human reproduction will also be changed as a
result.
“If the referendum passes
Your views
Letters to the editor
same-sex married couples will
have exactly the same constitutional status as a husband and
wife married to each other. It
will be impossible for the State
to give a preference for a child
having both a mother and a
father when it comes to adoption, surrogacy and donor
assisted human reproduction.
In each of these areas the Constitution will require that some
children be deliberately
deprived of either a mother or
a father, not through force of
circumstance but by State
decree. ‘Absolute adult
equality’
“A passed referendum may also
confer upon same-sex married
couples a constitutional right
to surrogacy and donor assisted
human reproduction. They will
certainly have a constitutional
right to procreate. The only way
same-sex couples can procreate
is by using these ‘services’. In
such a case there would be a
constitutional right for two men
to create a child who would
y CAMPAIGNING No
campaigners from the west
gathered in Eyre Square in
Galway last week.
have one woman as a biological
mother (through egg donation),
another woman as a birth mother
(through womb rental), but
would be left motherless for
the rest of her life. That child
may never even meet either her
biological mother or her birth
mother. This is a direct consequence of the Yes campaigners
version of absolute adult equality,” she claimed.
Ms Bopp added that while
society shows that children are
brought up in single parent
families without any problems,
this is down to circumstance
and not done deliberately to the
child. She said the referendum
was not about equality for gay
people and a Yes vote would
not give them any more rights
than they already have with
Civil partnership.
She claimed the issue of equal
recognition of same sex unions
under the law could be resolved
if legislators ‘get back to the
drawing board and do the job
for which they are being handsomely paid’.
“There is far more to this referendum that Yes campaigners
would like to admit. If we vote
No we at least make it possible
for the Oireachtas to vindicate
a child’s right to a mother and
a father. We also send a message
to the Government that the Irish
people believe that, all other
things being equal, children
deserve the love of a mother
and a father over and above the
love of any random combination of adults. If we vote Yes
we don’t give same-sex couples
any more statutory rights than
they already have. Instead we
enshrine within the Constitution the view that children can
never have any kind of right to
a mother and a father.”
‘We should be aware of what is at stake here’
Archbishop
Michael Neary is
calling for a ‘No’
vote on Friday
On Friday next, the people of Ireland
will be asked to vote in a referendum
that will change the meaning of marriage in the Constitution of Ireland. The
Church’s position on this is entirely
positive: it is against the proposal to
redefine marriage. We are not taking a
conservative viewpoint or wilfully
inhibiting genuine progress. We are not
being mean-spirited towards those who
have same-sex attractions. On the contrary, we regard marriage as the central
and crucial social relationship, which
is of natural law and plays an indispensable part in human life. This is seen
nowhere more than in pro-creation and
the parenting of children. What happens in marriage serves the common
good of both the man and the woman
and society itself. Our view of Christian
marriage, properly explained and understood, is not in any way disrespectful
of people who experience same-sex
attraction. As a Church we believe every
person is equal in the sight of God and
should always be treated with love,
dignity and respect. There is no denying the fact that marriage faces difficulties throughout the
Western world today. These pressures
impinge on all, but particularly on children. In the forthcoming referendum
we are not just being asked to redefine
marriage, we are redefining the family
and depriving, in the words of Pope
Francis ‘the rights of children to grow
up in a family with a mother and a
father’. One of the most important and
fundamental questions that each of us
has to consider is the rights of the child. Following the referendum on Children’s
Rights our laws now enshrine the principle that, in all decisions relating to a
child, the welfare of the child must be
paramount. ‘Crucible of our
humanity’
The family is the crucible of our humanity, the miniature world in which we
learn how to face the wider world. The
family is the seedbed of the future, the
best way we have yet found of fostering
security and trust. We should be aware
of what is at stake here. We are in fact
redefining the family. Throughout history and across all cultures, marriage
has been consistently understood to be
the union of male and female with procreative potential. A society that identifies the two parties in marriage as
spouse I and spouse II has lost sight of
a deep truth of human nature: Do the
complementary roles of mothers and
fathers matter in the upbringing of children?; Are we going to be the first generation in human history to say that
mothers and fathers don’t matter anymore in the upbringing of children? Pope Francis has been very clear in
his response to this question. As he said
recently: the family is the foundation
of co-existence and a guarantee against
> MAKING HIS VIEW
KNOWn Archbishop
Michael Neary
27
social fragmentation. Children have a
right to grow up in a family with a father
and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity. This
referendum is not and should not be
about judging the various family types
which have always existed as a reality
in Ireland. Deserve support
Married parents and single parents
deserve as much support as possible as
they live out the challenging vocation
of parenthood. It is a referendum, however, which is seeking to redefine the
very values underpinning our faithbased and cultural understanding of
marriage itself, the consequences of
which will impact upon our future generations.
In saying this we are not disparaging
anyone, nor are we being disrespectful
to same-sex relationships. Despite what
we are led to believe this referendum
is not about same-sex relationships or
about equality, but about the family. Civil
partnerships have already been introduced which give same-sex couples the
same rights as heterosexual couples in
terms of inheritance rights, next-of-kin
status, employment, and tax related
benefits. Such relationships ought not,
however, be classified as marriage. So
why the need to redefine marriage? The effects of this proposed amendment will be far-reaching for this and
for future generations. We invite people
of faith to bring this decision to prayer. In
the coming days, and particularly in
May, the month of Mary, we call for
prayer for marriage and the family.
In conclusion marriage is of fundamental importance for children, mothers, fathers, and society. Marriage should
remain a cornerstone of the family unit
and all of us need to reflect deeply
before changing it. This article is an abbreviated version of
a homily delivered on behalf of
Archbishop Neary at churches
throughout the Tuam Archdiocese on
May 9/10.
Sir,
I wish to reply to the opinion piece ‘Yes
is the only option’ written by George
Hook in The Mayo News on May 5. His
understanding of marriage as a relationship between consenting adults is
totally wrong. The purpose of marriage
is to strengthen the loving sexual bond
between men and women so that when
and if children are born from that love
they will have made a commitment to
rear them to adulthood.
Hook also states “the world is big enough
to cope with everything the human race
has to offer”. That is absurd. The human
race can offer hatred, genocide, selfdestruction and even the physical world
is in danger from humans. He also states
“Nature does not discriminate on life”.
Nature always discriminates. Nature
has given us all different talents, different abilities even different facial features
so that we can recognise one another.
Sexual attraction by nature for the vast
majority is the opposite sex. For a small
minority, possibly 3 per cent (this figure
is disputed) it is the same sex. So it is
not a case of unequal but different.
Marriage is for heterosexual couples.
Partnership, relationship, call it what
you will in law is for same sex couples
because it is a different concept and
construct to marriage. The slur of the
No campaigners (I am delighted to be
one) trying to keep Ireland in the Stone
Age contradicts Mr. Hook’s desire for
a fair debate. The idea of marriage for
gay couples is only prevalent in Europe
and USA mainly in English speaking
countries. Indeed many countries have
rejected the whole idea and this is the
reality of life in the 21st century. The
last coalition government led us to economic disaster and the opposition did
not shout stop. This present coalition
is leading us to moral disaster and the
opposition is not shouting stop. Democracy is leading us astray but it is all that
we have.
The full consequences of a Yes vote
have been clouded in a haze of feel good
factor and of making progress. This is
because gay people have been discriminated against in the past and have suffered greatly. But offering them marriage
is an illusory vision. Changing the core
idea of marriage will lead to its disintegration, which has stood the test of
time ensuring the very survival of society.
I have refrained from answering Hook’s
innuendos at religion or the use of
Christian faith arguments in this reply.
But the attitude of those in power that
no conscience clause will be permitted,
smacks of dictatorship. I appeal to all
those who have not yet made up their
minds, to vote No for the common good
of our country, our communities and
our families.
Sir,
I hold that ‘Marriage’ is exclusively a
union between a man and a woman and
I shall vote NO in the Referendum. My
purpose for writing this letter is to see if
the rights of those who may have difficulties of conscience about supplying such
weddings can be protected. I am thinking
of photographers and those who provide
wedding cars, banquets, music etc.
I have read of the most extraordinary
legal cases being taken against people in
America, Britain and I think also in Northern Ireland in relation to this matter. I
would fear that the same thing could
happen here unless precautions are
taken.
In practice we probably only talk about
a relatively small number of people but
their consciences should be respected
and they should not be put in this horrible position. The fact that the civil law
changes does not mean that a person’s
conscience automatically adjusts to suit
it. As I see it, it is not a question of judging the same sex couples but a question
of asking myself, what should I do if I
believe it is wrong? It a friend asks me to
put a selective weed killer on his vegetables which I should consider to be dangerous, what should I do? I would say no.
I think people should be allowed to say
No in this matter. Provided the couples
are told politely that there is a problem
of conscience, I would hope that most
people would accept it and make some
other arrangements with people who
would gladly provide the service without
any scruples. I would imagine that it
would be happier for the spouses themselves to be surrounded by people who
are at ease to attend to them, than people
who are only there to avoid a lawsuit.
If the emergency services are required,
obviously they have to go. I am most
definitely not motivated by homophobia
but I do want to see that people can follow their consciences. I am not trying to
imply that everyone should have a conscientious objection. Very good people
may view the thing from different
angles.
In the past, conscientious objectors were
given non-fighting tasks to perform, even
in wartime.
We now seem to have a situation in which
one could be sued for not carrying out a
task against ones conscience which someone else would gladly do. Recently I heard
a government minister give an interesting interview on the radio. At the end he
mentioned the Same Sex Marriage Referendum. I heard this part from another
room but I think I heard it correctly. The
gist seemed to be that he hoped we would
vote Yes. He himself would have voted
No some years ago but now he has seen
the light.
In general it is alright, there are some
religious problems but they are irrelevant.
Unfortunately they may be irrelevant to
a lot of people but they are still very relevant to many people of whom some
have given votes to you and your party
over the years.
Surely there could be a perfectly respectful conscience clause inserted which
would only mean that the same sex couples would have to accept that providers
of services could ask to be excluded on
conscientious grounds. Surely it is not
asking very much? If someone were to
tell me that a job which I asked them to
do caused them a conscience problem,
I would gladly tell them to leave it. I hope
and trust there is still some way of resolving this problem.
Le meas,
Liam Sadler, Sheeaune, Westport
Respectfully,
Name and address with Editor.
28
marriage referendum Opinion
The Mayo News • Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Opinion marriage referendum
Tuesday, may 19, 2015 • The Mayo News
Same sex couples deserve the
right to commit to each other
An Taoiseach Enda Kenny
I
am asking my County, Mayo, to
vote Yes for their family and their
future generations.
It is indeed rare, if not unique,
that we get the chance to vote
on something as unquantifiable yet
transformative as love.But this week
that is what we will be doing. On May
22, Irish voters have an opportunity to
take a stand for equality when our
country votes in a referendum on marriage equality.
What we do in the privacy of the ballot box will have a profound impact on
the public life and the personal lives
of our family members – for some, sons
and daughters, nieces and nephews,
for others cousins and friends.
By voting Yes, we will ensure that all
couples can share the benefits of civil
marriage, regardless of their gender.
We will ensure that people will be
treated equally no matter who they
love. We will acknowledge that samesex couples, like other couples, deserve
the equal right to commit to each other
“
Follow us
on Twitter
twitter.com/themayonews
It’s true to
say I have
had my own
personal
journey in
relation to
marriage
equality
with the words, ‘I do’.
Over the last four years, the Government has been working hard to secure
our recovery and to get people back to
work. We have shown our true character - our resilience, determination,
and capacity for hard work. Crucially
for us in our economic recovery we
are asking ourselves: how will we define
our value and our values into the
future?
While other countries have introduced
marriage equality with legislation, Ireland will become the first country in
the world to hold a referendum so that
the Irish people themselves make this
decision. We have the chance to say
that no-one should be discriminated
against simply for who they love.
It’s true to say I have had my own
personal journey in relation to marriage equality. The people of Mayo have
elected me to the Dáil since 1975, so I
have been there to see key legislative
milestones - the decriminalisation of
homosexuality in 1993, Fine Gael’s 2004
Civil Partnership proposals that led to
legislation in 2010, the recent Child and
Family Relationship Act. And through
the years, as I worked more with openly
gay men and women, including TD’s
and Ministers; I have seen their lives
and listened to their stories.
But that does not mean this is an easy
issue for everyone and I know some
voters have real concerns.
Legal distinctions
Some have asked me why not leave
civil partnership as the legal option for
same-sex couples? Civil Partnership
is a separate and unequal relationship
status. There are legal distinctions
between the two, including the ability
of civil partners to receive certain family protection rights from the Constitution. Civil partners also are not entitled to judicial separation and face
unclear next-of-kin rules for example.
As a State, we already have an institution in place to give loving, committed
couples full legal rights, and that is civil
marriage.
For those who worry about protections for religious freedom, it is important to highlight that this change affects
civil, not religious, marriages. Irish law
separates Church and State - this will
not change. This vote will allow samesex couples to receive full legal protections, and will not force any church to
recognise same-sex marriage. Impor-
> VOTING YES Seamus Conboy,
Yes Campaigner, meets An
Taoiseach Enda Kenny in
Castlebar last week. Pic: John O’Grady
tantly, marriage equality will not in any
way affect the institution of marriage.
It will only extend equal legal protections to all couples.
Others wonder how legalising samesex marriage impacts adoption and
surrogacy. The Referendum Commission, an independent body, has stated
clearly that this referendum is about
equal marriage and has nothing to do
with adoption, surrogacy or parentage
rights. Simply put, this referendum
does not in any way affect parental
rights. On May 22, the question being put to
people is about equal marriage. It’s a
direct proposition that Marriage may
be contracted in accordance with law
by two persons without distinction as
to their sex.
It is my great hope that Mayo and
Ireland not only says ‘Yes’, but that
great numbers go to polls on the question of marriage equality. Even if you
feel this issue does not personally affect
you, it is a declaration to your friend,
neighbour, relative that you stand for
equality for everybody, and as a country, we respect all loving couples who
seek to commit their lives to each
other.
Only a ‘No’ vote can fully protect the rights of children
Senator Rónán Mullen
O
ne image coming
from the tragic
earthquake in
Nepal has particular significance for our marriage referendum debate. A photo showed
Israeli gay couples carrying
their babies after they had been
airlifted to safety. In Israel, the
law restricts surrogacy to malefemale parents. So a commercial
surrogacy provider brings
impoverished Indian women
over to Nepal to carry the babies
for Israeli gay couples. The
human eggs are harvested from
women in South Africa. None
of these babies will ever know
a mother. Their last experience
of a mother’s love has been left
behind in Nepal.
So could we make sure that
any surrogacy in Ireland will
be restricted to male-female
couples, when the Government
acts on its intention to legalise
it? Actually, no. Not if there is
a Yes vote on May 22. If we
redefine marriage in our Constitution, same-sex married
couples will have the exact
same constitutional right to
start and found a family. On
strict equality grounds, they
will be able to knock down any
attempt by the Dáil and Seanad
to give preference to a child’s
having a father and mother.
A Yes vote affects adoption
too. Up to recently, general eligibility to apply to adopt was
confined to married couples or
a single relative of the child.
Single people, including gay
people, could adopt in particular circumstances. While the
best interests of a child are
generally best served by having
a mother and father, the Government recently abolished any
special preference for married
couples or unmarried malefemale couples. There was very
little consultation about this
change. But now they want us
to copperfasten this in the Constitution. The Dáil and Seanad
won’t be able to change things.
That’s also what a Yes vote will
mean.
Equality?
This referendum is not really
about Equality, because there
is no equality for children in it.
If it passes, the basic gift of
having a father and mother will
be denied to some children by
the State.
The referendum isn’t about
respecting gay people and their
relationships either. One of the
performers on the No side of
this debate has been Keith Mills,
a gay man who believes that
Civil Partnership fully recognises same-sex relationships
and gives the equality they
need. In fact, Civil Partnership
gives social welfare, pension
and tax-free inheritance rights,
similar to married couples, to
gay people. Two elderly sisters
can not avail of the same taxfree inheritance rights that
same-sex couples currently
enjoy. No Civil Partnership
rights will be affected by a No
vote.
But a No vote will send the
< VOTING NO Galway
Senator Rónán Mullen is
calling for a No vote on
Friday next.
“
A ‘No’ vote
will send the
Government
back to the
drawing
board.
29
Your views
SOCIAL MEDIA
The Mayo News asked
its Twitter followers
which way they were
voting in the marriage
referendum and why
Lorna Ní Thomáin
@PLANETLO1
Yes. Because love is love. It’s 2015:
time for equality, for all. #YesEquality
#marref
Donal Geraghty
@Donal_Geraghty
Yes. Everyone should be equal. If LGBT
citizens are not allowed marry then they
are not equal to everyone else.
Sadhbh Dunne
@sadhbh_dunne
I will be voting YES for equality for all!
love is love
Oilibhia Muirchu
@oilibhia
I’m voting yes, I’m not going to deny
anyone the right to marry @
YesEquality2015
Bertie Fish
@bertiesfish
Yes but there could be a silent No vote
which may come out next week. If
there’s a low turnout, the #MarRef could
be defeated.
Sinead Halligan
@halligansinead
Government back to the drawing board. It will force them to
reconsider in what circumstances a child can be brought
into the world using a donated
sperm, or a donated egg and
surrogate mother. Since a donor
sperm or egg means that a child
loses one of his or her genetic
parents, we should at least be
ensuring that such children get
to have a mother and father in
their lives. Only a ‘No’ vote
allows this.
Imagine another situation that
arises with a ‘Yes’ vote. A teacher
wants to explain to children
that, with love and respect for
everyone, it is good for a children to be brought up by fathers
and mothers. The social science
data says this is true - ‘two biological parents, in a low-conflict
marriage’ generally leads to the
best outcomes for children.
But the school is scared of
breaking the Equality laws. And
if marriage has been redefined,
they may well be right. Anything that could breach the
absolute equality of same-sex
marriages might have implications for teachers or for Statefunding of schools. The threat
alone may put the frighteners
on people.
Senator Feargal Quinn and
myself tabled amendments in
the Seanad to allow same-sex
marriage but guarantee the
preference for fathers and mothers in adoption and assisted
reproduction matters. We
sought amendments that would
ensure freedom of conscience
for teachers and schools. The
Government paid no attention.
Its strategy has been to manipulate people’s feelings about
the referendum. The term ‘marriage equality’ on the ballot
paper is designed to make you
feel you are anti-equality if
you’re thinking of voting ‘No’.
The government has also
denied that the referendum has
implications for adoption, donor
assisted human reproduction,
and surrogacy laws. That’s simply dishonest. Pretending ‘black’
is ‘white’ shows no respect for
the voter.
People shouldn’t feel guilty
about voting ‘No’. It’s not a referendum on how we feel about
gay people. It’s whether marriage should remain that institution we’ve always had - which
unites children with their biological fathers and mothers.
In 2010, respect for gay people
and their relationships led to
Civil Partnership. Now, it’s the
turn of children. Concern for
their right to a mother and
father, whenever that’s possible,
means we should vote ‘No’.
I’ll be voting yes because everyone
deserves the right to equality an who
am I to deny people that
Des Grealis
@Desmondo_G
I’ll be voting yes. Gay people are no
different to the rest of us and deserve
the same rights and responsibilities we
all have.
happy to finally receive voting card this
morning. I’m tired of watching people
debate the legitimacy of the lives of
others.
Willie Beamen
@SteeminBeamen
i’ll be voting no due to a number of
issues. Mainly because I want marriage
left as it is. Also due to the arrogant yes
campaign
Ronnie W
@Ekbalco
I’ll be voting yes. It’s the right thing to do
as there should be equality for all