A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Armenian-Azerbaijani War Rages In South Caucasus Mon Sep 28, 2020 22:47 | amarynth
South Front On September 27, a new regional war in South Caucasus arose from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region. Pro-Armenian forces captured the region in the early
The mortal battle of the Perfidious Albion Mon Sep 28, 2020 19:40 | amarynth
By Katerina for the Saker Blog In this my third and hopefully last essay I will try to analyse an ingrained and totally unresolvable animosity between England and Russia. Here
Trump?s Surprising Alaska-Canada Rail Announcement: Might America Join the Polar Silk Road? Mon Sep 28, 2020 18:17 | amarynth
By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog On September 26, President Trump announced that a long-overdue project would receive Federal support which involves connecting Alaska for the first time with
Moveable Feast Cafe 2020/09/27 ? Open Thread Sun Sep 27, 2020 03:00 | Herb Swanson
2020/09/27 02:00:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The world has gone absolutely insane! Fri Sep 25, 2020 22:36 | The Saker
[this column was written for the Unz Review] We all know that we are living in crazy, and dangerous, times, yet I can?t help being awed at what the imperial
The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Sarah McInerney and political impartiality
Did RTE journalists collude against Sinn Fein? Anthony
Irish Examiner bias Anthony
RTE: Propaganda ambush of Sinn Fein Anthony
Hong Kong and democracy Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
A Blog About Human Rights
Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
Turkish President Calls On Greece To Comply With Human Rights on Syrian Refugee Issues Wed Mar 04, 2020 17:58 | Human Rights
US Holds China To Account For Human Rights Violations Sun Oct 13, 2019 19:12 | Human Rights
UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia Sat Aug 31, 2019 13:41 | Human Rights
Human Rights in Ireland >>
The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason
On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan
What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith
The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith
Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh
Spirit of Contradiction >>
Secular Reasons for 'No' in Marriage Referendum
Here are some secular reasons to vote No in the upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage.
Whatever one personally thinks of marriage, just like religion, it should be consigned to the private sphere: I). on philosophical grounds; and ii). because State support for marriage directly contributes to inequality of the treatment of families, and directly discriminates against unmarried parents and their children - regardless of whether the parents are 'straight' or same-sex.
I am not alone in thinking that all marriage is an unnecessary fetish which is the legacy of religious ritual. Where private ceremonies are concerned, it is none of my business; and if invited, I can go along for the party and wish the couple well (within our closed circle of wedding-invitees, or a personal announcement in Social Media etc.). However, as a citizen, the State’s involvement in marriage is my business; and I object on two grounds:
Firstly, State involvement with marriage custom is as archaic as mentions of god in the Constitution or Statute books of any State. If there were to be a referendum on extending the definition of ‘god’ in the Constitution to include all deities, I, as an atheist, would be conscience-bound to vote No, because no god has any place in a Constitution. Concomitantly, when an extension of the legitimisation of marriage is proposed, I am also duty-bound to vote No – because I am against State involvement in marriage.
Despite my personal opinion on marriage, I cannot, and do not, have objections to what people wish to do in their own private ceremonies; or in their campaigns within respective cultural or religious groups to achieve equality within those contexts (including equal access to religious rites). But the State has no business in legislating for, or interfering in, the intimate relationships of consenting adults.
The second reason, is that, because the State’s involvement with marriage is intrinsically bound up with its definitions and redefinitions of the family, it is necessarily directly discriminatory against unmarried families. The following examples are based on the traditional unmarried vs. married family models, for illustrative purposes; but if the referendum is carried, the institutionalised discriminatory divide will merely be maintained across all family types (straight and gay parents alike).
a). Current state involvement with marriage is discriminatory against unmarried fathers, because even after the new family legislation, they do not have automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, or even access to their children. Conversely, children do not have automatic rights of access to their unmarried fathers. This state of affairs is absurd, and deeply sexist (i.e., discriminatory on grounds of gender).
Marriage, of course, guarantees automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, and access, to both married partners (whether or not both of them happen to be the biological parents).
Whether or not the referendum is passed, a complete stranger can come along and marry the ‘primary’ parent, and regardless of the wishes of the excluded parent (who may be the biological parent), have all of those automatic rights; and the children have no say.
b). unmarried primary parents are expected to do impossible time-juggling with the back-to-work pressure from when the youngest child turns seven.
c). The State discourages unmarried fathers from having an active family life – thus perpetuating the stereotype of the feckless unmarried father. There should be no difference between how a married or unmarried family is treated.
d). currently, parents need to be married for children to have automatic rights of inheritance.
The welfare of children must be looked to outside of the institution of marriage, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against the 33% of children born outside wedlock in this country. If Britain and France are ahead of us in social trends, we can expect even more children outside of marriage (UK 48%, and France 52%). We need to work with this social fact, and not against it by bestowing benefits on those who marry.
This country has a legacy of putting unmarried families at a disadvantage – a shameful legacy which should be reversed immediately and completely. This referendum, if not a red herring, is reinforcing this legacy, as well as legitimising and strengthening a discriminatory, unhealthy, and decaying institution.
In sum, the State should treat all children and families equally, and stop discriminating against them on the grounds of marriage. Like religion, any marriage is a personal and private matter which does not belong in a modern or postmodern, secular Civic Sphere. The proposal masks the real inequalities in an increasing number of families, resulting from the State’s heavy support for an archaic fetish; and encouraging such irrational support should be seen in times to come, as a retrograde statement by the Irish electorate.