It is exam time, so instead of studying and possibly risking
failure my brain has decided to look at all of the things in the world that
have nothing to do with what I should be doing (currently macroeconomics).
One of these distractions has been the marriage equality
debate. I, for the first time ever, had an online argument with a stranger. I
have always avoided this because, it just seems like you can’t win but I
couldn’t resist the bait.
In true ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about and now I’ve
been caught I’m going to pretend it hasn’t happened’ style the fella online
avoided my response to his question, which he kept changing (it was confusing,
I don’t think he knew what his argument was but by god did he know he was
right!). His argument was kind of based on the constitution, his interpretation
of a document he either hasn’t read or has misunderstood. He kept stating that
there was already marriage equality and where did the constitution discriminate
against marriage. Now while he is correct, kind of, we do all have the same
right to marry, (in regards to the current debate) so long as the person you’re
marrying is of the opposite sex, then absolutely we have marriage equality. And he is also right that nowhere does the constitution
discriminate against married people, it discriminates for married people as the
family is based on marriage. So after deciphering his ranting, possibly
incorrectly, I got to thinking, about the constitution and peoples use of it.
It’s an odd document, it’s kind of like the bible, very few
people have actually read it, everyone thinks they can quote it, most of those
quotes are wrong and even when they’re right they’re usually misinterpreted.
It’s also a document written essentially by one man, in 1937, who half the
country hated and who’s views where a bit dogey lots of the time. Love him or
hate him, Dev had some serious control issues. All of this aside, just looking
at the constitution itself, analysing what it is. It is the highest form of law
in our country, it cannot be changed by any except the people. It is presented
as ‘by the people, for the people’, it is supposed to represent that the people
of Ireland are sovereign, that there is now power in the land greater. This is
only true to a point, we do have absolute control over the answer of a
referendum, just not the question.
So if we take the constitution to be as advertised, the
people’s law, surely rather than yelling it at each other we should think, not
just about what it says but what we want it to say. What do we want our
constitution to say about our law, our society, the people of Ireland? Do we
want it to be the ideologies of one dead republican from the 30’s or do we want
it to be progressive, inclusive and representative of the ideals we, as a
society, hold today?
Ranty internet man is correct, the constitution doesn’t
define marriage, equality could be legislated for, no problem. But I think we
should add that definition in anyway, I think that by including it and the
inclusion of children’s rights (that has now been given the green light to be
added in) we are creating a document worth shouting about. A document that we
have had a hand in making more inclusive, equal and worthy of national pride.
The highest law of the land should be idealistic, should be representative of
the best of ourselves, referendums like this one give us a chance to
acknowledge the change our society has made since the enactment of the
constitution.
So the 22nd of May isn’t just about marriage
equality, it’s about demonstrating the positive change that can happen in our
country. Be part of it. Vote yes!
