Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

eorpach wrote: »

Not with you at all Phil Ewinn, no. Here's why:

For any society or system to function effectively, there has to be checks and balances that protect the rights of the minority. It is for this reason that where there is marriage, there needs to be divorce; where there is a Church, there needs to be a State, where there is an Executive, there needs to be an independent Judiciary, and so on. History is littered with "proof" that minority interests cannot (and should not) be subjugated by the majority. To do so sows the seeds of discontentment that ultimately results in societal upheaval. That much, is, incontrovertible historical fact.

Take your example of marriage working so well for so long Phil Ewinn; why then does every nation on Earth (bar the Holy See and the Philippines) make provision for its dissolution (divorce), including Ireland?

By your token, should the minority Irish population in the majority British State have simply accepted that the Act of Union should be retained, on the basis that the (British) majority considered (from their historical perspective) that the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland "worked" ?? I'm sure if you could ask anybody in Ireland touched by the Famine, they've had felt differently...

The simple fact is that the majority always believes that any system which is constituted in such a way as to be deferential to a majority "works"; until there comes a time when it doesn't. Contrast:

• Whites and Slaves
• Landowners with the Vote against Tenants without the Vote
• Universal Suffrage if you're male vs Democratic exclusion if you're not,
• Full-participation in society if you're able-bodied people vs lesser participation if you're disabled.

All of the above are examples of "arrangements" which existed for centuries, did they "work"? Should we, the "majority" revert to them???

Consider, by analogy:

You (or a dependent of yours) is physically disabled, and you (or that dependent) are legally denied some of the opportunities that your sibling, (or your sibling's child) take for granted, e.g. full participation in education. Would you be so accepting of the status quo, then? After all, it is only in the past 20 years in this country that this State has actively sought to integrate special-needs children with their able-bodied counterparts in the classroom - we separated physically-disabled children from society by putting them into "special" schools for long enough, should we rollback to that??

My basic point is, every society needs to promote and cherish the position of the minority. It is the hallmark of an enlightened society, and it enriches us all.

Finally, as to your assumption that legislation would be sufficient. Might I ask, do you have any legal training?

The simple fact is that legislation is not a sufficient guarantor of rights under Ireland's parliamentary democratic system, since legislation is ALWAYS to be interpreted by the Courts in conformance with the 1937 Constitution and what Courts consider prevailing public morality. Add to that the fact that legislation can be changed by any future parliamentary majority; the Constitution cannot. For these fact alone, only a Constitutional amendment stating the clear will of the Irish People is a sufficient legal guarantee for the minority disenfranchised by the prevailing system of marriage, i.e. gay people.

You have the comfort of being a part of a majority in this society on this issue, Phil Ewinn, which puts an added onus on you to consider the perspective of the minority, not to dismiss it. Please do so sincerely when you go to the Ballot Box, do not be so dismissive as to blithely point at "the centuries".

Sorry for such a long post folks, but some people in the majority need the position of the minority spelt out in really tedious detail in order to grasp why the majority-situation is really not a sufficient position in the first place.