David Quinn
The stakes in the coming marriage referendum could scarcely be higher, writes David Quinn
Social liberalism has now entered a very militant phase. It used to insist ‘merely’ that we tolerate one another’s ‘lifestyle choices’. But now it demands that we not only tolerate every choice, it demands that we approve of them, celebrate them and, if we do not do this, then we deserve to be shunned by society and even prosecuted by law given certain conditions.
This is why the Government has flatly refused to countenance a conscience clause for those unwilling to serve and facilitate same-sex weddings if the marriage referendum goes through. If you are running a printing business, a flower shop, a photography studio and you continue to believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that serving a same-sex wedding would go against your beliefs, then too bad, the law will treat you as the moral equivalent of a racist bigot.
In a similar vein, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said last week that he expects Catholic (and presumably all denominational schools) to teach about same-sex marriage if we pass it on May 22.
The only way a Catholic school could do this is if it could also point out and explain its belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman and nothing else is a marriage at all.
Inclusivity
Mr Kenny was asked whether he would support the right of Catholic schools to do this. A spokesman replied that Christianity is about “inclusivity and tolerance”. This is not an answer at all, of course and the refusal to give a direct answer to a direct question is extremely worrying. Is it the intention of the Government that denominational schools be prevented from teaching what they believe marriage to be?
We can well imagine that even if they are not formally prevented from doing so, social sanction will do the job instead. Eventually, schools that teach marriage can be between a man and a woman only, will be accused of teaching ‘hate’ and eventually the age-old view of what marriage is will disappear from our schools entirely.
To head off this possibility at the pass, religious schools will have to be given a formal guarantee in law that they can continue to teach what they believe about marriage even if the referendum passes in May.
However, the Government is very unlikely to give such a commitment because it is now so beholden to the sort of militant liberalism described above.
This extreme social liberalism was also on display in the Seanad a fortnight ago as the radical Children and Family Relationships Bill reached its final stages. Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald rejected one moderate amendment after another.
For example, she rejected amendments from Senators Fidelma Healy Eames and Ronan Mullen to the effect that if a mother placed her child for adoption, the State would have to abide by her wish that the child be placed with a married man and woman if that was indeed her wish.
The minister said that a lot of weight was already given to the wishes of a mother, but she refused to give a mother the right to insist that her child be placed with a suitable mother and father over and against say, a gay couple.
To this effect, she quoted studies by a Dr Susan Golombok which purport to show that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by a mother and a father.
What she neglected to point out is that these studies are almost invariably based on tiny, non-random samples.
However, the bottom line is that the minister sees no special advantage in a child having the love of both a mother and a father over and above the love of any other parenting arrangement.
But this sums up the entire philosophy of the Government (and opposition parties) towards the family. It explains why no weight whatsoever is attached to marriage or to motherhood and fatherhood in the Children and Family Relationships Bill.
It explains why it wants to change the present constitutional vision of marriage and the family (namely man, woman and child) and it explains its planned surrogacy legislation which will give two men the ‘right’ to have a child via an egg donor and a surrogate mother.
The Government would not countenance any of this if it believed marriage was important, if it believed motherhood and fatherhood carry special weight and if it believed that biological ties had any real importance.
Fitzgerald also rejected amendments aimed at stipulating (as at present) that married couples should be preferred over other parenting categories such as cohabiting couples, single people or gay couples when a child is placed for adoption.
She then rejected amendments that would have preferred couples of any kind over a single person.
Similar amendments on who should be allowed to use donor eggs or sperm to have children were also rejected.
Fitzgerald’s reasons for rejecting these amendments was revealing. Essentially the wishes of adults must come first.
Responding to the amendment that would have limited IVF etc to couples only, she said: “Again, this involves a hierarchy of family types and would deprive single women of the possibility of fulfilling what might be a much-desired wish to become a mother.”
The much-desired wish of many children to have a father as well as a mother is not to be considered.
Nor is the very strong evidence that children are mostly likely to fare best when raised by their married biological parents.
Liberal spectrum
So we can see very clearly how the Government’s view of the family has reached the extreme end of the liberal spectrum.
The proposal to change the constitutional definition of marriage and the family is all part of this new social architecture.
And to add insult to injury, no dissent will be permitted. Hence the refusal to allow a conscience clause to those who will persist in holding to the ‘traditional’ view of marriage and the family, and the insistence that Catholic schools teach about same-sex marriage.
The stakes in the coming marriage referendum could scarcely be higher.
