A ‘No’ vote will unfairly place gay couples in a legally subordinate position
They weren’t married, but had two children, both girls. He wasn’t prepared for fatherhood, the relationship quickly came under strain, and eventually broke up in acrimonious and traumatic circumstances — traumatic for Joan, that is. Anyway, the ex-boyfriend is back living his own life, out with the lads, and he shows little interest in his two daughters.
Some five years later, Joan is now in a stable and loving relationship. I’ve never seen her happier and there’s a light in her eyes that was absent for years. The two girls are thriving, relaxed and gigglish, as children of that age are. No longer does a glint of fear appear in their eyes when the front door is opened.
The person with whom Joan has found happiness is also a woman. These are the pathways down which life sometimes leads people, but it’s all for the good. The ‘no’ side would have us believe that voting ‘yes’ in the marriage referendum will deprive children of a mother or father. However, the only person depriving Joan’s children of a father is the children’s father himself.
Tom Carew argues that voting ‘yes’ is guaranteed to increase incidences of surrogacy and donor-assisted human reproduction. However, these matters have already been dealt with in a separate bill that is now law and, in any case, relate far more to infertile heterosexual couples than same-gender couples.
Voting ‘no’ will not change that.
On the other hand, voting ‘no’ will ensure that Joan and her children will be kept in a legally subordinate position, unable to access all the privileges and protections of civil marriage.
I don’t see how any good can come from voting ‘no’, either for people like Joan, her children or the wider society and I wonder if Tom Carew, and others on the ‘no’ side, have fully thought through the consequences of what they’re urging.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
