Abandon partnership bill for sake of the children

Monday, March 15, 2010

IN her letter (February 22), Laura Finlay complains that the Civil Partnership Bill lacks "rights and responsibilities offered by both marriage and civil marriage".

In fact the bill goes much further in its provisions than equivalent legislation in some other EU countries.

In total, only a minority of European countries have actually introduced provisions for civil partnerships.

As regards America, Time magazine reported in January that Maine had become the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. And now we have the senators in the states of New Jersey and New York all voting recently to uphold natural marriage.

Despite Ms Finlay’s claims to the contrary though, the Irish Civil Partnership Bill, unfortunately, will create a legal structure in very many ways akin to marriage.

The unique and distinct importance of heterosexual marriage has been recognised by countries worldwide for centuries . Marriage received the support of the Irish state primarily because it provides the best environment for the raising of children. As far back as Roman times, laws provided incentives for couples to raise a greater number of children.

The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell commented: "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution."

In fact, children are the proof of a sexual relationship. Two friends could easily pass themselves off as civil partners and reap the benefits. Interesting too that Ms Finlay highlights the lack of mention of children in the bill. Could it be because homosexual unions just can’t produce children? Not without heterosexual involvement of some kind or other, that is.

Despite Ms Finlay’s reassurances, the bill also has the potential severely to restrict the rights of religious believers. In other jurisdictions people have been taken to court as a result of almost identical legislation. Photographers, printers, hoteliers, anyone who refuses to provide services to same-sex couples are potential targets.

People such as Ms Finlay believe the Government should mandate that its employees act as if they believe in secularism as an ideology. This means acting as if what one believes is a matter of indifference, which is precisely what secularists believe.

But why should people of faith be forced to do that?

We have a right to ask and expect not to be compelled and bullied into acting contrary to our beliefs in order to satisfy the demands of an ideological version of secularism. This bill should be abandoned in order to protect the very children Ms Finlay says she’s so concerned about. And at the very least, if it is to proceed, it needs to have a conscience clause.

Caitriona Connolly
Richmond
Templemore
Co Tipperary

This appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, March 15, 2010