The two sides in this referendum debate, so far as I can see, don’t just disagree. They disagree about what it is they are disagreeing about.
Most of those I’ve seen arguing for a Yes vote sincerely believe that this is, wholly and solely, a debate about who should be able to get married.
Most of us arguing for a No vote think this is a debate about what marriage is and how redefining marriage also redefines family law.
Unfortunately for the public, the media are (for the most part) accepting the Yes side’s framing of the issue. The No side are getting plenty of tough questions, which is great, but the public aren’t hearing the Yes side interrogated in the same way.
In a fairer debate, it’d be great to hear the Yes side, and those who fully support the Children and Family Relationships Bill (CFR Bill), being asked questions like this:
The Yes side keeps saying that the referendum is only about the right of two adults to marry each other. But we’re being asked to change Article 41 of the Constitution which is called ‘The Family’. It confers the right to marry and found a family. So how can you say the referendum is only about adults?
The Supreme Court, in Murray V Ireland, found that one of the marital rights protected by the Constitution is the right to bring children into the world. Doesn’t this alone mean the referendum is about children as well as adults?
The Government’s always talking about a donor-conceived child’s right to know their parents, but opponents of the Bill argue that this isn’t enough. Isn’t it the case that Article 7.1 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child recognises a child’s right to know and be cared for by both their parents, and that donor-assisted human reproduction (DAHR) makes this impossible?
You’re always talking about family diversity, Minister, but isn’t there a difference between supporting families that have lost one or more natural parents through circumstance, and allowing people to bring children into the world such that separation from one or both parents is part of the plan?
Is there any special value to children of having the love of a mother and a father? Why do politics and business benefit from the lives and perspectives of men and women, but not children?
If marriage has nothing to do with children, why does it need to be consummated to be legally valid? Would you support removing that provision if the referendum is passed?
If so, won’t voting Yes to the referendum change marriage for straight couples as well as gay ones?
If not, won’t there actually be two kinds of legal marriage, rather than one?
Doesn’t the experience of forced adoption in this country give advocates of DAHR pause? In each case a child is separated from their natural parents to fulfill the desire of particular adults for a child.
You often talk about the CFR Bill being about recongising reality. But under this Bill it’ll be legal to put two mothers down on a child’s birth certificate and no father. A lot of people would ask if that’s ‘recognising reality’ in any meaningful sense?
Yes, lots of people are having children through DAHR – but surely that’s no reason in itself to legalise it? The law bans plenty of things that a lot of people do, and many human rights abuses throughout history have gone unrecognised for years before being abolished. Surely just the fact that something is happening doesn’t mean the law has to go along with it?
If we heard some of these questions crop up in media debates a bit more often, it would go a long way towards reasurring the public that our media is genuinely interested in exploring the issues rather than engaging in advocacy. And if Yes campaigners and DAHR advocates really have answers to these questions, then they have nothing to fear in facing them. I’m quite curious to hear the answers myself: I’m interested in having a debate here, not in two groups of people talking past each other.