Tomorrow is the deadline for submissions to the Constitutional Convention that will clarify if our murkily interpreted constitution defines marriage equality as being solely between one man and one woman.
This was my submission:
I was born in winter and I was born sick. I was on a ventilator for several days and my mother having spent eight and half months in hospital while pregnant with me stayed with me for those extra days, anxious and worried. I was her second and last child. My sister and I are very different. I am the fire to her calm. She is tall and I am short. But my mother loves us both. She watched us grow and she watched us develop. She watched up cry and she watched us both graduate from college. Next week she will see me graduate again from my Masters. What she can’t see at the moment is me marry my partner. But she can see my sister marry her boyfriend. This divergence is not one of the differences my mother can take lightly, like eye colour or interests. This is pivotal. The state is saying that because of my sexual orientation, I am somehow worth less, somehow less equal than my older sister. In the eyes of the law I and my relationships are less respected than my siblings. It does not matter that the tears we have cried together after heartbreak have been the same. Her love and heartache have been deemed more legitimate than mine. The Irish Constitution must be interpreted as a living constitution. LGBT rights in Ireland have advanced rapidly in the last two decades but the barrier against full marriage rights for all citizens of Ireland regardless of sexual orientation remains one of the last and most strident bastions of inequality and intolerance against LGBT people in Ireland. There is no separate but equal argument here. Human rights are universal. They do not depend on constitutional conventions to make them applicable. Like the right to freedom from torture, the right to an education, the right to gender equality. They may not be respected but they are still a right. The right to marriage is enshrined in several international legal instruments to which Ireland is party. They recognise the right to marriage as a human right. Human. I am human. Regardless of colour, caste or creed. Orientation, gender or political affiliation. I am human. These instruments also make allowances for country law and cultural practices. But neither society nor the interpretation of a line of text can take away my fundamental humanity. This convention exists as an excuse so that whatever the decision, authorities can say that they dealt with it fairly. But there is nothing fair about holding a convention that boils down to discussing the equal human status of a minority within the population. I am either human or I am not. I am either equal or I am not.
Currently legislation will protect my sister’s children. It will ignore mine. Current legislation means that transgender individuals may be forced to divorce their partner in order to have their gender recognised as same-sex marriage is not currently legal. The constitution does not state that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Article 41 3 1° states “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”
The argument exists that the original drafters would have intended that marriage was between one man and one woman. However, the constitution is not static, it is a living thing and it must be interpreted in light of the world we live in today. When the Constitution was written, there was no access to contraception, women still suffered mass inequality, corporal punishment was still in place in schools and the death penalty was still in force. We do not live in that world today. I was not raised in that world. I live now, I breath now and I wish to marry my partner today. I wish to sit beside my sister and her husband someday, in front of my mother, my friends and my family members. As a wife with my wife. In the world I was born into, in the time I was born into and with the dignity, respect and equality to which I am entitled. Just like every other Irish citizen.
Experiential Existentialism (Enduring Hope) 
I think you are right. I think you are noble. I think this is an excellent argument, well executed, aimed at changing minds. But you must also touch hearts. And in order to touch hearts you must speak through words without any subtext of anger seeping through. You have cause to feel rage, but you can’t show it. I’m not certain how to do that, although I try (through my writing) to lead the reader towards a decision of taking sides based on the situation presented. It let’s them find themselves by themselves, instead of being told they’re wrong and what they must do to correct the errors of their ways. I wish you success. Truly, I do.
Hi Marguerite,
Thank you for your comment! I think however you have misinterpreted my emotions. I do not feel rage at all. I do feel anger at this though I try to keep it from my writing. I speak about injustice and I try to get that feeling of injustice across. It is a feeling of pain and of indignation, of recognition and the refusal to speak in meaningless platitudes and excuses. I believe in the better nature of human kind on a core level. But I also believe that some people may need to be told they are wrong, even if they know it themselves. People can convince themselves of anything if the have the will. If people did not stand up and voice the wrongs of humankind how would any of them be ended? Silence breeds misdeeds. There is a time to be silent. But this time, with regards to this submissions process, was not one of them. I was not vitriolic, I was not insulting. I laid the cards on the table and I spoke from the heart and from my understanding of kindness, fairness and truth. I do not see anger and hate as tools. I do not use them as such. I see them as easy emotions that damage the person who wields them the most. I appreciate your comment, and we can all strive to be less angry. But we cannot ignore injustice in the process. Thank you.