Dear Love Boaters

Repealed

So, the voters of Ireland have spoken, overwhelmingly. Last Friday, Irish people voted to repeal the 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

More people voted in the referendum than have ever voted on a single day in the country before. It was that important. The vote was carried by nearly 70%. It was that important.

Of course, those who voted ‘No’ are very disappointed. They may be feeling hurt, and upset, and abandoned, and powerless. They fought hard for something that was important to them, and they feel let down by those who voted ‘Yes’, and who are responsible for the fact that the 8th Amendment will be repealed, and women will have bodily autonomy.

 

I would hate for those voters to feel powerless, so – based on a number of suggestions that the No voters mooted as ‘solutions’ to choice – I’d like to offer the following for their kind consideration:

  1. The No voters were very concerned about foetuses being aborted because they (the foetuses) had severe, life-limiting, life-constraining disabilities. Given their concern, I’m sure they’d love to help children and families who have disabled children. I know several such families who need respite, who need practical help with regard to buying nappies and specially-adapted vehicles and much more. My friend, Tracy McGinnis, has a GoFundMe page to raise money to buy an adapted house for her severely disabled son. You can donate here.
  2. They were also concerned that women and girls who were pregnant as a result of rape would not have abortions. Clearly, their concern for those of us who have been raped – and especially those of us who have been raped by our own fathers and brothers – is touching. I’d suggest donating funds to their local rape crisis centre, sexual assault treatment unit, or even training and volunteering to help women after they have been raped.
  3. There was much attention paid by the ‘No’ campaigners that even the threat of suicide, or other mental health difficulties, was not enough to offer support to women who wanted to make choices around their pregnancies. I’d suggest that they fund-raise for Pieta House, the Samaritans, or – better yet – to pay for more perinatal psychiatric services in Ireland. Currently, there are only three such specialised doctors, and they practice in Dublin.
  4.  As a lone parent – one who didn’t abort, in other words – I’d have loved their support when my children were younger. My family of origin is toxic and abusive, so I have no contact with them. Nor do I have support from the ex, so someone to have come around a few times a week to help with the housework; with child-minding; or even to make me a cup of coffee and chat with me when the kids were in bed, would have been fantastic. So – No Voters – find a lone mother in your locale, and find out what you can do to help her. Then help her.
  5. In a similar vein – find a man who was left raising his child/ren on his own because the 8th Amendment caused his wife’s death, and do what you can to help him, and them.
  6. No-ers had a great plan for women who didn’t want to continue their pregnancies: They figured these women should continue their pregnancies, and then have their babies adopted. Now, the problem with this ‘solution’ is that adoption is the solution to unwanted parenthood, not unwanted pregnancies. So, here’s what’ I’d suggest: People who think adoption is a great idea should roll up their sleeves and get stuck in to helping re-unite babies, who were sold by the religious orders, with their birth parents. They should campaign to have the files held by these religious orders opened wide, and information shared with those who want it.

 

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I’m sure you can think of more. Please feel free to share them. No voters – you’ve shown us your passion, you’ve shown us you can mobilise, you’ve shown us that you can be (dare I say it?) obstreperous; you’ve shown us how loud you can be when MSM ‘silences’ you; you’ve shown us that you can persuade people to fly in from all over (but especially from America) to help you. Put all that passion and expertise (and money!) to good use and help out the already-born.

Why ‘No’ Now?

If you’re living outside of Ireland at the moment, you might be unaware that our little country is going to the polls next month to vote in two referendums. The first (which I’m not going to discuss at any great length just yet) is to change the constitution to allow those over the age of 21 to be elected president. The other offers Irish people the chance to change the constitution in order to make marriage equally available to people regardless of their sex. If passed, the amendment would read:

              ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’.

Personally, I think that’s a glorious idea. I think it is a wonderful idea to make marriage available to people who want to get married. Let’s think, for a moment, about what marriage actually is. It started as a way to bind two people together in order to protect assets; it was commonly used to join the estates of two families of equal standing. Sometimes, one party would be wealthier, in the financial sense, than the other. In those cases, the less financially well-off person would bring something else – social cachet, considerable beauty or the willingness to marry the gimpy son of the wealthy merchant – to the partnership. Marriage also served as a way to try to ensure – in the days before DNA tests – that the children men were raising were their own. Within the confines of a marriage, people were contractually obliged to have sex with no one but their individual spouses.

That brings me to another point; long before it was about love and fluffy stuff, marriage was about the legalities of safeguarding wealth and property within the confines of the marriage and with regard to inheritance. Marriage was and still is a legally binding contract. People enter into legally binding contracts with people of the same sex all the time. People enter into legally binding contracts with people of the opposite sex all the time. No one bats an eyelid. Why shouldn’t men and women enter into legally binding contracts with whomever they want whenever they want?

These days, our understanding and expectations of marriage have changed to incorporate an assumption that the two parties are deeply in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together based on that love. The legally binding contract bit hasn’t gone away, however. (Though it has changed a bit to reflect that women are not regarded as property; rape within marriage is illegal, violence within marriage is illegal and a husband can no longer sue another man for ‘lack of consort’ if his wife has an affair).

Many people still choose to get married in accordance with their religious beliefs, and this referendum – if passed – will not change that. Religious marriages, however, are not civil marriages. Anyone who gets married in a religious ceremony also needs to have a civil marriage in order for their marriage to be legally recognised. That is why the argument some religious people have against equal marriage perplexes me: equal marriage is about civil marriage, not religious marriage of any denomination. The terms and conditions (for want of a better way of putting it) of religious marriages will not change if the constitution does.

The ‘argument’ that children will be adversely affected if they are brought up by two loving parents is just an exercise in casuistry, not an argument at all. Not to mention that it’s rather irrelevant if you refer back to the wording of the proposed change in the constitution.

In November 2012, we had the opportunity to vote in another referendum. At that time, I was open about my intention to vote ‘No’. It was an unpopular stance; many people I know and respect were voting ‘Yes’ and campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote.  While I disagreed with them, I could understand their point, I could see where they were coming from. This time around, however, I can’t say that. There are many people who are campaigning for a ‘No’ vote and I would really like to understand why. So far, I haven’t heard a single real argument against equal marriage. Maybe this is because there isn’t one, or maybe it’s because I just haven’t been pointed in the right direction.

If you feel that a ‘No’ vote is required on May 22nd, I’d like to hear from you. I’d like to understand your objection and engage with it.