"Fear is a powerful emotion...but another feature of this society is it’s compassion"
Mary McAleese said last month, that the referendum is 'about Ireland's children, gay children' and that passing it would dismantle the 'architecture of homophobia'.
WE ALL know what’s going to unfold if the same-sex marriage referendum is passed. Gay couples are going to rush out, tie the knot, and immediately demand that they be provided with children to rear. We know this because the no side says children will no longer have an automatic right to a “biological mother and father”.
Without such a right, it will be open season on accessing children by any means possible in order to rear them by same-sex parents. So if you are currently raising children in a married household, put up the barricades. They’ll be a-comin’.
In any event, the “biological mother and father” will no longer be whom they once were, because their marriage will be “redefined”. The union they thought they were committed to is no more. Their relationship will be in danger of heading for the knacker’s yard.
They will probably separate, and the break-up of their union will provide an opportunity for same sex couples to grab the kids. In fact, what’s likely to unfold is that the only people getting married in the future will be same-sex couples.
All of which would be very worrying, but the conditions that will prevail should the electorate vote yes will be such that it won’t really matter. Because if same-sex marriage is introduced, the sky will fall in. Everybody will die in the natural disaster. Except same-sex couples, who will emerge from the wreckage, taking as hostages a few priests, who will be instructed to conduct church weddings on the spot before the next referendum on the slippery slope to hell happens along.
The no campaigners are not specifically sketching out the above scenario, but if you listened to some of them long enough, your imagination could go on a walkabout. The language, the subtext, the inference voters are invited to draw, all plead with you not to go down this road that darkens into the future.
The sky was going to fall in after the divorce referendum in 1995. Then, as now, children were used as pawns. The poster that read “hello divorce, bye-bye daddy” said it all. Not “goodbye”, but “bye-bye” issued like a sad child, never again to set eyes on a divorced father who was walking out the door.
Did the introduction of divorce have any impact on the institution of marriage? Did it cast a shadow of doom over society at large? Was marriage devalued or redefined, as it was claimed it would be, as it is now being claimed it will be if the referendum passes? Family life has changed in a major way over the last two decades, but precious little of the negative aspects of change could be blamed on the introduction of divorce. Instead, it was recognised that the introduction was necessary for those who found themselves trapped in marriages. Compassion won out in the divorce referendum over the forces that wanted social mores maintained in their own image. This time around, similar forces are marshalled against each other.
The principal moral imperative on the yes side is this is a matter of equality, ensuring that a minority be permitted to remove the final barrier of discrimination separating them from the majority of citizens. Just as the divorce referendum was about providing relief to those trapped in marriage, this one is concerned with opening the institution up to those excluded because of their sexuality.
There are some who have personal reservations about a change. We live in a conservative country. There are positive aspects to the forces of social conservatism that have shaped Irish society, notably the tight-knit nature of communities.
There is an argument to be made by such forces against the introduction of same-sex marriage. However, it is quite obvious that those campaigning against the proposal have no confidence in such a message. Perhaps correctly, they believe that the moral force of the yes side could not be countered by arguments that maintaining marriage as it is would benefit society at large into the future.
So instead of honestly putting forward their argument, they resort to gathering up children to be used as both shield and weapon. As in the divorce referendum, the no campaigners are attempting to project themselves as the protectors of defenceless, dependant people, who are among the most vulnerable in society
As Alan Shatter noted last week, many of the figures who are using this strategy were also opposed to the children’s rights referendum in 2012. Unequipped to invest their campaign with moral force, they have resorted to using fear. Children will be deprived of the right to their “biological mother and father”. Married gays will usher in mass surrogacy. Children raised by same-sex couples…well, say no more, but we all know they’ll be somehow deficient without both their biological parents. The institution of marriage will be kaput. The sky will fall in. The horror, the horror.
Fear is a powerful emotion, particularly in a conservative country. But another feature of this society is its capacity for compassion. And what will ultimately determine the outcome on Friday week will be which of these emotions holds greater sway with the electorate.
One figure whose stance in this poll speaks volumes is former president Mary McAleese. She is well respected across society, and somebody who takes her Catholic religion seriously. She is also interested in the effect this referendum will have on children, although, unlike those who obsess on theoretical children, she’s talking about real human beings. The referendum is, she said last month, “about Ireland’s children, gay children” and passing it would dismantle the “architecture of homophobia”.
“We owe those children a huge debt as adults who have opportunities to make choices that impact their lives, to make the right choices, choices that will allow their lives grow organically and to give them the joy of being full citizens in their own country.”
Strong stuff, and no doubt informed by her real world experience of being the mother of a gay man. It is that first-hand knowledge of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends which may well be enough to push this poll over the line.
If Ireland does vote yes, it will be the first time a national referendum on this issue will have returned a positive outcome. Such a result would be probably be regarded around the world as being newsworthy coming from a country long noted for its conservative Catholicism.
Would it be that noteworthy? For this is also a country of small communities, urban and rural, where the strength of ties ensures that the lives of others are regarded as real, rather than abstract. In that vein, a yes vote would be a source of great national pride. Yes, this is what it means to be Irish today.
Michael Clifford
No comments:
Post a Comment