Redefining marriage is revolution, not evolution

While the proposed Constitutional amendment is being promoted as being abut ‘equality’, there’s another question to be decided on May 22.

Should we, as a society, retain marriage as it has been understood until now, that specifically recognises the unique significance of sexual complementarity, which is not a doctrinal invention of the Catholic Church or any other religion but is the basic biological fact of nature, without which society wouldn’t exist because we ourselves wouldn’t exist?

Or should we, in effect, replace it with what amounts to a new institution, also called ‘marriage’ but inherently different in its nature from the present institution?

If ‘marriage equality’ is approved on May 22, what will then be called ‘marriage’ will have no clear basic defining characteristic that will make it uniquely significant among social institutions.

It has been claimed that same-sex marriage is an evolutionary step, but this is not the case. While it’s true there have been changes to the institution over time, what has remained constant until now is that marriage is synonymous with sexual complementarity. Thus, abandoning this most fundamental characteristic of the institution is not evolutionary but amounts to a radical revolution.

Hugh Gibney

Castletown

Athboy

Co Meath