Michael KellyThis referendum is not about same-sex relationships or about equality, but about the family
Tomorrow citizens of the Republic are faced with a crucial decision: whether or not to radically change the constitutional definition of marriage. It is a decision upon which everyone should reflect deeply.
Bunreacht na hÉireann – the Constitution of Ireland – is a solemn compact between the people since our State is a creation of the citizens.
The Constitution doesn’t belong to the Government, or the political parties or the Church, or the clamouring voices in the media. It belongs to the people.
This is not a referendum on how much we love our fellow citizens who are gay. Despite what we are led to believe this referendum is also 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.
This is a vote about the very nature of marriage itself and the importance society places on the role of mothers and fathers in bringing up children.
There have been loud voices calling for a ‘yes’ vote: all political parties, almost all the media, the Garda Representative Association, foreign companies based in Ireland and a range of celebrities.
Celebs
Inevitably, some will be swayed by what celebs and tech giants have to say about the meaning of marriage. More thoughtful voters, however, will weigh up the particular arguments for and against same-sex marriage rather than vote in a particular way because someone has told them to.
I’ll be voting ‘no’ tomorrow. It’s not because I’m part of an “architecture of homophobia” to quote former president Mary McAleese, it’s because, like Pope Francis, I passionately believe in the uniqueness of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
The debate about same-sex marriage, at its heart, is a debate about how highly we value mams and dads and whether we think the complementarity of men and women, especially as mothers and fathers, should be embodied in a special and distinct social institution.
People often ask “what harm would it do if we allow two men or two women to marry one another?”
But the harm is in the outright denial by proponents of same-sex marriage that there is any added value in children having a loving mother and father.
In the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’ Irish people are being asked to abandon the notion that motherhood and fatherhood are complementary roles of special value to children and society. Same-sex marriage supporters don’t only want to make marriage gender neutral. They want to make parenthood gender neutral.
They want us to agree that marriage should be for any two people who love each other, regardless of gender, and that having two loving parents is just the same as having a loving mother and father.
These two demands are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other and they amount to an outright denial of sexual complementarity.
While same-sex marriage proponents can hardly deny that there are two sexes, they emphatically deny that they are complementary in any significant way, least of all from the point of view of children.
Discrimination
Supporters of same-sex marriage insist that they are discriminated against because they can’t marry. But is it really discrimination to maintain a social institution which recognises that the two sexes are distinct and different and complementary, and have another legal structure for other kinds of relationships?
We are being told that we must introduce this because lots of other countries have. In fact only one quarter of European countries have done so and none by a popular vote. Indeed, it has been defeated whenever it has been put to the people.
Tomorrow’s question is a simple one: do we believe that there are real and complementary differences between men and women and mothers and fathers, and if so, do they really believe it is unjust discrimination to have a special social institution which embodies these differences?
Each citizen should pause for thought and be wary of the same rush to group-think that saw an overheated property market – cheered on by journalists, economists and politicians – bring the country to its knees. In a culture where everyone thinks alike, few people think at all.
Don’t be afraid to vote ‘no’.