 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Should the State sanction gay marriage?
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
YES: Eloise McInerney says everyone has a right to choose
marriage and |
NO: Tony Allwright says the recognition of gay marriage would
discriminate against other kinds of partnerships and be open to abuse. |
||||||||||||||||
|
YES:
I read a rather grim story recently in Newsweek magazine. A
woman in Seattle was trapped in the basement of her home when flood
waters poured into it. She phoned her partner, who came to try and get
her out, but the pressure of the water was too strong. They called the
fire brigade but, by the time it arrived, the water had already filled
the basement and she was unconscious. She was rushed to hospital where, unaccountably, her partner was banned from her bedside as she fought for her life, allowed entry only in time to hold her hand as she died. Afterwards, her partner was also forbidden to make any of the funeral arrangements. This happened because, although they had been partners for 10 years and had committed to each other in a public ceremony, the couple were not legally married. Neither had they ever had the option to get married, because they were both women, and the state of Washington does not allow same-sex marriages. (Afterwards, the testimony of the bereaved woman, Charlene Strong, was crucial in having legislation passed to legally recognise same-sex couples in the state.) During the recent Civil Union Bill debate, Charles Flanagan TD told a similar story of a gay man in his constituency who was treated as a stranger by the family of his deceased partner, relegated to the sidelines during the funeral and denied the rights and respect that we would normally accord to someone in his position. Sadly, these kinds of stories repeat themselves again and again. Stories of couples forced to separate because they were born in different countries and couldn't achieve residency through marriage; of parents whose children were taken away from them when their partner died; of bereaved people being forced to sell the house they shared with their partner because the State had more right to it than they. The only thing that will put an end to these stories and end the hardship and discrimination faced by same-sex couples is the provision of full civil marriage for all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. After much procrastination, the Irish Government has finally decided to begin addressing some of the problems faced by same-sex couples in Ireland, and will table the heads of a Bill on civil partnership before the summer. We have no idea when actual legislation will emerge, or what exactly it will provide, but one thing is clear - it won't be full equality. What are on offer are special rights, not equal rights. Same-sex couples will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, and the law will continue to treat their relationships as inferior and undeserving of the same respect accorded to heterosexual relationships. Unfortunately, there are people who would agree that this should be the case, many coming from a religious perspective - claiming that marriage is sacred, defined in the eyes of God as existing between one man and one woman. But nobody is asking for church weddings here. Religion doesn't, and shouldn't, have a part to play in state contracts. Others argue that marriage exists to protect children, and since gay people don't have children, they should have no right to marry. But gay people do have children, they do raise families, and they do so just as well and as capably as heterosexual couples, often in the face of official discrimination. These children are being denied the very protections under law that we consider so important. Gay parents are a fact, now, today, in this country - why should their children be discriminated against? But marriage is not just about children. If it were, why would we allow people beyond child-bearing age to marry? Why would we allow those unfortunate couples with fertility problems to marry? Why, for that matter, would we allow people who choose not to have children to remain married? Because there is a recognition that marriage is also about love and commitment. Some claim that gay people don't want commitment, pointing to the jaded stereotype of the promiscuous gay man. This argument is a tautological one - gay people don't commit, therefore they should not be allowed to commit, but without the legal mechanisms and expectations of commitment, how are they supposed to do so in the first place? Apart from that, it completely ignores the promiscuity of heterosexuals. A trip to most straight nightclubs on Saturday night speaks volumes. Sexual orientation cannot be changed, anymore than skin colour. We think it's wrong to discriminate because of the latter, so why should it be okay to discriminate in terms of the former? Gay people are normal people. They work, they pay taxes, they participate in their communities, they contribute to society, they raise children. Marriage is not a privilege, it's a right. Is it really fair to continue denying same-sex couples the same rights and respect as other Irish citizens? • Eloise McInerney is communications officer of LGBT Noise, a group set up last November to lobby for gay civil marriage in Ireland. (www.lgbtnoise.ie) |
NO:
Civil union, civil partnership, gay marriage. It's all the talk, these
days. Unless you're one of those (say in the Vatican) who believe
homosexuality is some kind of curable disease, or else a fun lifestyle
choice like drinking wine instead of beer, you would have to feel sorry
for the plight of gays and lesbians in a hetero world. A tiny minority wherever they go, often - and wrongly - despised, disliked or disparaged, whether to their face or not, I doubt they can ever feel fully comfortable except amongst fellow-gays. Furthermore, except for those torn few who suppress their true sexual nature, conventional marriage is out, as is having children and enjoying a "normal" family life. Conventional marriage is, of course, a State-endorsed union between one man and one woman who vow to stay together for life. Thus, when you hear proposals for making marriage available to gays, you'd have to be especially hard-hearted to remain unsympathetic. Of course, there's nothing to stop two gays vowing to remain together as a couple for life. But without legal standing they would be denied the social benefits of marriage, specifically the opportunity to be taxed as a single unit rather than individually; tax-free inheritance of assets between spouses; the continued payment of a pension to a surviving spouse; and certain other less pecuniary rights such as next-of-kin status. These benefits help couples procreate and raise children by reducing the financial penalty of the parent who spends more time rearing and less time earning. Only last week, Kate Holmquist lamented in The Irish Times how motherhood reduces earning power. Yet numerous studies demonstrate that kids have a better chance in life if reared by their married biological parents. This is society's return for the tax breaks. Thus, the practical argument against gay marriage is that without the possibility of children, marital tax concessions have little payback. It is true, however, that availability of gay marriage might help reduce promiscuity among gays, but although this may be intrinsically beneficial to society, it is not comparable with raising responsible future citizens. Granting legal status to gay unions means conveying very real financial advantages. So, a question immediately follows: what's so special about a partnership that's gay? If gays are to benefit, there are plenty of other partnerships that should also be considered: two elderly brothers who have shared a house all their lives; a spinster daughter and/or bachelor son living with their widowed mother; lifetime bridge partners who have long shared a home together; celibate gays; three siblings. Once you move away from the one-man-one- woman formula, the possible permutations become limitless. The one thing that would distinguish gay partnerships from all the others is that sex is involved, albeit fruitless sex. But that is a ridiculous prerequisite for tax breaks. Yet without it, the doors would open to all kinds of people - genuine and mountebank alike - claiming to be civil partners as a tax-convenient ploy, some undoubtedly exercised on the deathbed of a conveniently ageing relative or friend. Linda McCartney, resident in England for three decades, hired top lawyers to have her will probated in New York, which avoided 40 per cent inheritance tax, estimated at Ł60 million. Without discriminating in favour of gay sex, it will be impossible to stop two people hitching up for purely tax purposes, or indeed three or four. In jurisdictions - such as the UK - which have granted significant tax advantages to gay couples in civil unions, it is only a matter of time before non-gay couples claim and obtain similar rights. It's already happening. Britain's two elderly Burden sisters, who have lived together all their lives, are appealing, on anti- discrimination grounds, to EU courts to avail of the inheritance tax waiver now available to gay couples. Otherwise, when one of them dies, the other will have to sell their shared house to pay her sister's inheritance tax. Eventually, someone will succeed in extending gay tax breaks to non-gays. Just as abortion law - originally highly restrictive - has over the years become de-facto abortion-on- demand until late into pregnancy, so tax- advantageous civil unions will eventually become available to any couple (or triple) who ask for it. The "equal rights" argument does not hold water because gays already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex; they just usually choose not to, albeit for understandable reasons. So, for all the understanding gays deserve, any kind of statutory non-traditional marriage for them or anyone else is insupportable and unjust. It's either too discriminatory against non-gays, or else too wide open to abuse by tax-dodgers. Resultant tax concessions would, in the absence of any discernible payback, unjustly increase the tax burden on others. Non-marital vows and commitments are personal arrangements. The State has no business getting involved. • Tony Allwright is a part-time engineering and industrial safety management consultant and a blogger (www.tallrite.com/blog.htm) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Letters Published in Response to the Debate DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE - 16th January 2008Madam, - Tony Allwright (Head 2 Head, January 14th) gets it all wrong when it comes to gay marriage. His loosely veiled discrimination against lesbian and gay couples seeking the right to civil marriage is framed in terms of concern over providing the same benefits to "other partnerships" - such as cohabiting elderly brothers . Let's nail this once and for all: if the Government wants to legislate for cohabiting siblings then it can if it wants. But that it is an entirely separate argument to legislating for full equality for gay and lesbian couples by granting them access to full civil marriage.
Moreover, it might be possible to take Mr Allwright seriously if he didn't display such obvious bigotry towards homosexual people who, in his view, indulge in "fruitless sex". With this comment his mask slips, and it is all too obvious that he is merely a mouthpiece for the far right whose outdated view of human sexuality belongs to an Ireland that we all hoped we had left behind. - Yours, etc,
GRAINNE HEALY, Co-Chair, MarriagEquality, Hogan Avenue, Dublin 2. Madam, - Were you distracted by the crossword when you sanctioned some unknown, self-described blogger and part-time engineering and industrial safety management consultant named Tony Allwright to pen a piece against the possibility of the Irish State sanctioning gay marriage? Is this the latest in "reality journalism"? What makes his particular opinions worthy of being shared with your readers? Mere mortals are best confined to the Letters page.
Surely The Irish Times should rise above accommodating those who loosely and lazily refer to uncited "numerous studies" and events and consequences in unnamed "other jurisdictions", and who pejoratively introduce the abortion argument, not to mention tax-dodgers - both other arguments for other days.
Furthermore, Mr Allwright makes no mention of the legitimacy of tax breaks for married couples in so-called "fruitless" sexual relationships. He can keep his mountebank pity for the "tiny minority" who seek equal opportunity and respect as equal citizens of this republic. - Yours, etc,
TIM FORDE, Swords, Co Dublin. MORTAL COMBAT - 17th January 2008 Madam, - "Mere mortals are best confined to the Letters page," writes Tim Forde (January 16th). Mortal, yes. Mere, no! - Yours, etc, OLIVER McGRANE, Marley Avenue, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16. DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE - 21st January 2008Madam, - Grainne Healy (January 16th) displays a poor grasp of the concept of equality when she states that the call "to legislate for cohabiting siblings" is "an entirely separate argument to legislating for full equality for gay and lesbian couples". Either you want equality or you don't. It is clear that Ms Healy wants special treatment for gay and lesbian couples by virtue of the sexual nature of their relationships. The chaste, the lonely and cohabiting siblings are expected to fork out for her privilege. - Yours, etc, MANUS MAC MEANMAIN, Elizabeth Street, Dublin 3. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Online Poll and Further Debate The Irish Times hosts a poll and a vigorous debate, here, with 28 pages of comments adding up to some 300 individual comments in all. This is a huge response, as it is rare that the number of pages exceeds ten. Indeed, out of 44 debates to date (end January 2008), 39 have had fewer than ten, and they in fact averaged only 2˝ pages of comments. The five others averaged 18, of which my debate was exceeded only by last March's question, “Should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to adopt children?”, with 30 pages, and a poll result of 63% YES to 37% NO. Clearly, gay issues strike a strong chord with Irish Times readers. The vast majority of debaters attack my article (with several ad-hominen assaults) rather than even refer to Ms McInerneys', but few attempt to refute my actual arguments. Many people talk of
as if I had raised these issues as reasons to deny marriage to gays. But I never said any such thing. Some people seemed to infer that because I said nothing homophobic, that only proves how clever I am at being a closet homophobe (which I am not, closet or otherwise). A very large proportion of debaters - and therefore presumably voters - state that they are themselves gay. This puts into some perspective the poll, which eventually stood at 
73% YES
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Excerpts from the Online Debate Excerpts from the 300 comments were published on 21st January, as follows. Join the debate online Last week Eloise McInerney and Tony Allwright debated the question "Should the State sanction gay marriage?" Here is an edited selection of your comments: My grandfather was born in Ireland. He would be
rolling over in his grave over this. Will the Emerald Isle transition to
the Lavender Isle? Homosexual behaviour is diseased and threatens the
common good. There is no such thing as a "committed" sodomite
relationship. As a Catholic priest, I fully support the co-equality
of every human being made as we are in the image and likeness of God. To
treat as equal before the law of the land the love between same-gender
adults is a work of justice that cries to Heaven for implementation.
Surely it is past time that the Irish State did as our ancestors
envisaged all those years ago and "treat all our children equally." Tony Allwright asserts that if same-sex marriage were
introduced, there would be nothing stopping people marrying each other
for tax breaks. Bizarrely, he doesn't follow that thought through and
realise that such fraudulence is entirely possible with heterosexual
marriage. Homosexuality is unnatural behaviour and is opposed by
the major religions. I live and let live and don't force my opinion, but
gay adoption and marriage is a step too far. The child's innocence would
be morally corrupted and two dads will never replace a mother's unique
role and, like it or not, that child will be victim to intolerable
cruelty throughout his school years through no fault of his/her own. Note to "Joe" who won't give his full name: the
"intolerable cruelty" you claim children of gay marriages would suffer
would very likely be inflicted by people like you. My parents brought me up to believe that marriage was
a union of two people who love each other. Does it matter that these two
people are the same sex? Tony Allwright writes that "It is true, however, that
availability of gay marriage might help reduce promiscuity among gays".
I for one vow that as soon as I can marry my lady, I will stop preying
on innocent straight women. The right to marry is a human and civil right. Denying
that right to lesbians and gay men is a fundamental denial of our rights
as human beings and as citizens. It is profoundly discriminatory, and
unegalitarian. Well it's just a simple issue of minority
discrimination which should be solved as soon as possible. All arguments
against gay marriage apply essentially to straight marriage as well.
People who love each other and want to be together should be treated in
the same way, disregarding the question of their sexuality. I strongly
hope that Ireland will sanction gay marriage soon. The definition of marriage is a partnership between
one man and one woman, so until you take the decision to call something
which isn't by the term of something which is, the question, thankfully,
is merely rhetorical! We have had same-sex marriage here for years, and
despite what some claim, civilisation has not ground to a halt, children
of same-sex couples have not been socially crippled, and we still have
freedom of religion. As someone who did make use of the civil partnership
regulations in the North, I see no reason why my friends 10 miles up the
road can't avail of a similar and preferably better facility of complete
equality in the form of a marriage. As far as my partner and myself are
concerned we are "married" to each other even if technically it's called
a civil partnership. Now is the time for change! |
|||||||||||||||||
Astonishingly, hardly anyone has made any comment whatsoever - supportive or disparaging - about the arguments on the YES side by my antagonist Eloise McInerney. She must be very disappointed at being so comprehensively ignored. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You can listen to and/or download an MP3 podcast here. I was also asked to participate in a few other live debates, but declined because I don't want to find myself as some kind of crusader, and more to the point such events are not my strongest suit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Own Comments If You Like | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to relevant blog posts ...
 |
November 2007: Recognizing Non-Marital Unions |
|
January 2008: Should the State Sanction Gay Marriage? |
|
February 2008: Do Fathers and Mothers Matter? |
Or, for a little [Light Relief]
“”
|
Gift Idea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLOGROLL
Blog-Irish (defunct)
|
