On the Marriage Referendum and claims that it has “nothing to do with family and
children”.
If the Marriage Referendum passes, the amendment to Article 41 of our
constitution will equate same sex unions with marriage in every sense.
This means that the current preference in law for a mother and father as per
“the right to found a family” will disappear from our constitution. There will no
longer be a right of a child to know & be raised by their genetic parent. There will no
longer exist in law a preference for husband and wife adoption and AHR. Leveling of
status of man/woman marriage to man/man or woman/woman marriage also levels the
status of man/woman parenting to man/man or woman/woman parenting. This will
occur simultaneously with marriage redefinition. The redefinition of marriage is the
redefinition of family precisely because of the amendment to Article 41 if the
referendum is passed and precisely due to the unique wording of the Irish
Constitution. The right to found a family will become a constitutional right of any 2
men or any 2 women. Their right will then have to be vindicated. Not to do so would
be repugnant to the Constitution.
In order to vindicate the right to form a family for two men, the likelihood is
that they will be legally entitled to seek a surrogate. It is impossible to see how such a
“right” could be denied any married couple if all unions are interpreted identically
under the law. No such right exists currently. It will most likely have to be a right
after May 22 if a Yes vote is carried. In order to vindicate that right, there will have to
be radical new legislation regarding surrogacy. Two women will also have a right to
found a family as per Article 41. This means that they will have a legal right to seek
sperm donation and create a child whose father will be donor <insert number.
Donor conceived adults are emerging from the 1970s (the inception of IVF) to
ask their respective governments why they allowed half of their identity to be stolen
from them. Not just donor conceived adults of gay couples of course, but also those of
hetero couples. Difference being the majority of IVF (90%) from back then (& still
the majority to date) consists of a husband & wife using their own gametes, in which
case the biological parents of any resulting child will also be the social parents.
The emerging issue now is that of donor conceived people. In the case of same
sex couples who seek to create their own (partially) genetic child, ALL of theses
couples will need a donor. Even with non anonymous gamete provision, the child will
have zero identifying information until they reach 18 yrs old. An entire childhood will
have passed before their true identity and genetic heritage can be revealed to them.
Just let that thought settle for a moment while you think about your own childhood or
that of your beloved children. Puberty is tough enough without having to deal with an
identity crisis in real practical terms as well as the inevitable identity crisis of self
discovery in which we all find ourselves dizzily whirling about during those
formative years of adolescence.
In practical terms too, this can have potential deadly implications. Too serious
and potentially tragic to contemplate. Some donor conceived adults have not been
able to discover hereditary illnesses that may in turn impact their own children. In at
least two cases of which I am personally aware, this has led to the death of a child that
could have been avoided. If a propensity to a certain life threatening condition is not
revealed during the early years of childhood, then parents cannot take preventative
measures.
In other cases, there are numerous issues where people have been devastated
to discover they have dozens and even in some cases hundreds of half siblings. Only
in a very simplistic, superficial way could this scenario be considered to be *cool*.
Having read first hand testimonials from people who were during their late teens
confronted with this bizarre vista, I can only say that it was profoundly disconcerting
for them. They never EVER got past it. Nor could they *get over* it. I have had
discussions with women who are afraid they may have inadvertently slept with their
own brother. While the likelihood may be slim, why should any person have to live
every single day of her or his life wondering about these things?
Art 41 Section 3. 1°
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of
Marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
If the Marriage Referendum passes, the State will be obliged and can be
compelled to vindicate the right of all married couples to found a family. Not to do so
will be repugnant to our constitution. This will necessitate radical donor assisted
reproduction legislation. Surrogacy will become a *right* to couples who will require
a womb in order to found a family. Sperm provision will also become a *right* for
exactly the same reason.
Failure to accommodate either will be repugnant to the Constitution.
It is also worth noting that the Children And Family Relationships Bill has
been rushed through Dáil Eireann with only a handful of the 166 representatives
present. Objections to certain radical sections with regard to adoption and donor
assisted human reproduction were all but ignored. The Dail has already passed
(without a vote and with only 5 out of 166 TDs present) the law which removes
“mother” and “father” from a whole raft of family law.
These facts combined with the question of state resources being used to
promote a Yes vote raise some doubts regarding not least of all the constitutionality of
the referendum itself. A shadow still hangs over media bias before the Children’s
Referendum and there are murmurs amongst constitutional law experts about the May
Referendum echoing the McKenna judgment.
Kate Bopp
Spokesperson, Mothers and fathers Matter.