There’s a persistent idea on the Yes side that notions that the idea of a child having a “right to a mother and father” or “a right to a relationship with their genetic parents” is a nonsense argument because – or so the reasoning goes – the state can’t guarantee it. Their mother might tragically die, their father might walk out, and there’s not much anyone can do about it.

But what would happen if we applied this logic to a few other rights? How about the most basic one – the right to life?

I’m not talking about abortion here, I’m talking about the subset of people who everyone agrees has a right to life – those walking around. The right to life is the single most fundamental human right there is: without it all other rights are meaningless.

But can the state really guarantee this right? Let’s look at a couple of examples.

One of the people who’s pretty convinced that the right to a mother and father means nothing is journalist Vincent Browne. But imagine if a mad axe-man were to sneak into the TV3 studios of an evening and kill Vincent and his unfortunate panel stone dead. The state could certainly prosecute the man after the fact: but that would be no good to Vincent. His right to life would stand thoroughly un-vindicated.

The example need not be so drastic: people have accidents, get ill, grow old. In the end, the right to life is completely unguaranteeable.

What’s that you say? The state can’t absolutely guarantee any right, but it can do whatever is reasonably possible to ensure rights are vindicated?

Precisely.

How can the state preserve Vincent Browne’s right to life in the mad axe-man scenario? It can employ police officers to keep an eye out for masked men with large blades; it can pass laws making it illegal for people to carry axes on the street; it can disincentivise the axe-man from going on a murder spree using the threat of prison.

It can also take more indirect measures: trying to ensure that as many children as possible grow up in circumstances that minimise their chances of becoming axe-wielding maniacs; using the law as an educator to help create an anti-axe-murder culture. In fact, the state does all of these things! So it makes perfect sense to talk about vindicating rights even when that can’t be done with certainty. In fact, if you can think of any right that can be guaranteed with 100% of the time, I’d love to hear from you, because I can’t.

So Vincent’s argument, and that of many who support a Yes vote, would make the right to a mother and father meaningless, but only by making literally every other right meaningless too.

* * *

Another point that’s often raised is that even if the state could guarantee a child’s right to a mother and father, doing so would be absurd, as it would mean the State taking draconian actions like forcing widowed mothers to remarry.

But note: the State is not even doing everything it could possibly to protect Vincent Browne’s life from axe-men. It’s not mandating that he wear body armour, or providing him with security guards at all times. It’s doing everything reasonably possible, given the relatively low prevalence of rogue executioners and disillusioned lumberjacks in Irish society.

It’s the same in other areas, like health. Compromises are made, and realistic lines are drawn. We’re not legally prohibited from eating chips and sausages all day because that would be an unacceptable violation of our freedom: but we’re happy to ban crack cocaine.

So the suggestion that guaranteeing a child’s right to a mother and father requires extreme measures is just wrong. The state can do what it does in other areas and take reasonable action. It can support and incentivise marriage, which encourages mothers and fathers to commit to each other and to their families; it can remove marriage penalties from the social welfare code; it can express a preference for mothers and fathers in adoption law; it can forbid the use of reproductive technologies that deliberately separate a child from one or both of their biological parents; and it can maintain a definition of marriage that keeps a child’s right to a mother and father at its heart.

NB This post is likely to run afoul of the Problem With Misinterpreting Analogies. So no, I am in no way, shape, or form comparing axe-murder with a child being denied a mother or father. I am using a deliberately silly and over-the-top example to illustrate a principle about guaranteeable rights.