The Chorus - Gay Marriage

‘51 per cent in favour of gay marriage”, declared a headline on the front of the Irish Examiner last week. But the detail of the survey so announced told a different story, writes John Waters.

The survey's main question, for example, was not, “Are you in favour of gay marriage?”, but, “Recently gay unions/marriages were made legal in Britain, would you be in favour of similar legislation being brought into Ireland?” There is considerable legal and cultural difference between civil union and marriage. Marriage occurs exclusively between heterosexual couples. It is the crucible of nurturing for the next generation. As such, it has, over the centuries, acquired a special status in the culture of human society, and so has been underpinned with legal benefits and privileges, including inheritance, taxation and pension rights. In recent times, homosexuals have claimed a “right” to some of these benefits on the basis of “equality”. And, because modern societies have painted themselves into a corner in this regard, a fudge was developed which, it was naively hoped, would put the issue to bed. This fudge is “civil union”, recently introduced in the UK. It is not marriage, in name or in substance, but was conceived as a means of meeting homosexual demands for inheritance, pension and taxation rights.

Homosexual lobbyists claimed that they were not seeking to compete with married couples but simply to have their relationships recognised by society. They rubbished claims that they wanted homosexual relationships placed on a par with marriage in all respects, including adoption rights, and denied that their claim for “recognition” was part of a salami tactic to deliver the ultimate prize.   Since the legalisation of civil unions in the UK last year, most of the British press has been referring to this development as “gay marriage”. This has an ideological dimension, in that most of these newspapers and their journalists can be described as “liberal”. Although a majority of the British electorate is opposed to gay marriage, much of the media appear to have entered into an implicit accord with gay lobbyists to wear down the popular will by osmosis. Hence, even when a compromise is reached, it is immediately described in terms suggesting more than has occurred. In a few years, when the push comes on to deliver the final prize of gay marriage, the case will somewhat irrefutably be made that, in effect, gay marriage has already existed for some time. Thus does the doctrine of liberalism, of which media agitation is a central element, contrive to break down the will of the people. We can observe from the Examiner story and headline that the same process is already in train here. The Taoiseach can declare, as he did six weeks ago, that a referendum to change the Constitution to allow for marriage or adoptions by gay couples would not be passed by voters; but the lobbyists, supported by the undeclared liberalism of much journalism, have other ideas. Even though Bertie Ahern also said that he would be prepared to introduce legislation to ensure that gay couples could acquire inheritance, taxation and pension rights, the headlines at the time highlighted the negative spin: Taoiseach says no to gay marriage.  

This provides an interesting snapshot of how the media operate in setting agendas and seeking to shift public opinion beyond its democratic consensus. For many years, media have campaigned assiduously for certain liberal causes, not on the basis of a public mandate but because journalists believe they know better than politicians or the people. At the back of this process is the supposedly “ethical” idea that resistance to such developments as gay marriage can only arise from backwardness or “intolerance”. Most of the time, though, the objective is not really the advancement of “tolerance”, but the pursuit of a line that will engage and agitate people, and therefore sell more newspapers. All the while, newspapers claim to be merely “reporting the facts”, when in truth they are distorting the facts and pursuing a delicate issue in an utterly irresponsible way. Last week's Examiner story shows how it works. Pick a liberal issue, carry out a survey, load your questions and then twist the results to create a misleading, sensational headline. Thus, you subvert public opinion on behalf of those with a vested interest in doing so, but only as a collateral aspect of your real objective: increased sales. There are enormous implications for society in the contemplation of gay marriage. To allow gays to adopt children in a context where the natural fathers of such children have themselves no right to adopt would be a recipe not for equality but the opposite. Yet, the Examiner story, having misinformed its readers about its own survey, went on to claim that “exactly half of Irish adults would be happy to allow gay people to adopt children on the same terms as heterosexuals”. What does this mean? Nothing: heterosexuals are not allowed to adopt children because they are heterosexual. A heterosexual man cannot adopt a child. Two heterosexual men together cannot adopt a child. A heterosexual father cannot adopt his own child, unless the mother agrees and he is married to another woman, in which case it is this other woman, not the man, who is in effect enabled to adopt. Most newspapers, despite their pontificating about social breakdown, couldn't give a toss for the shape of society, so long as they shift units. Over the past year or so, an All-Party Oireachtas Committee has been assessing the constitutional position of the family in the context of increasing marital and social breakdown. There are many urgent aspects to this discussion, including the escalating number of births to single mothers, the marginalisation of fathers and the summary and barbarous deliberations of family courts. But the only media coverage of the work of this committee has related to the non-issue of gay marriage. It might represent a redeeming aspect to be able to say that Irish media had a “liberal” interest in the “rights” of homosexuals, but the truth is that the headline “Dáil committees to consider gay marriage” is much more likely to shift units than “Politicians at last focus on misery of Irish families”.