 —  June – July 2013
leader
V
ILLAGE is driven by an egalitarian approach to rights. It is not
impressed with assertions of rights to property by those with lots of
it for example, or noisy campaigns against property taxes, at least
fair ones, or against capital acquisitions tax, septic tank charges
and the likes.
It treats very seriously the right to life, as the most fundamental mani-
festation of the equality of humans; it promotes equality of education and
equality of health treatment. It believes in equality of quality of life. And
Village considers that future generations have an equal right to the fruits of
the earth giving rise to an obligation to care for the environment, sustain-
ably. Equality is Village’s thing.
Against this background it takes gay rights very seriously, but is unim-
pressed with the case for gay marriage.
The case for gay rights, pioneered in this country by David Norris
through the courts and the European on Convention on Human Rights, is
unanswerable. Everyone has the option – philosophically – to believe the
equality of gays or to deny it. But the fact is that if people choose – politi-
cally – to be offended by what others get up to where no nuisance is caused
to third parties, there would be no end to the asymmetrical busibodinesses
that would undermine public and individual welfare. For this reason society
is best served by freedom for consenting adults to exercise whatever sexual
preferences best fulfil them.
Village feels no more need to indulge the preferences of bigots that others
should deny their sexuality than it feels the need to indulge the preferences
of bigots that seek to count people as inferior by virtue of their race, sex,
able-bodiedness or any other accident of birth. Indulgence of such bigotry
is a charter for Nazis and eugenicists.
Marriage, on the other hand is very different. Being married or unmar-
ried is not an accident of birth. Being moved by recent celebrations in France
and an underlying visceral preference for the views of the LGBT movement
rather than those of the Iona Institute, driven by a belief that politics should
be about promoting the needs of those whose welfare is poorest or whose
equal rights have been most invidiously flouted, is simply not enough to
afford marriage a status it does not deserve. Marriage should be an emo-
tional and social privilege not a legal right, though of course how married
people are in the privacy of their own homes is their own business and not
something the State should interfere in (!).
A right is something that everyone can avail of. Marriage is something
that only people who are linked through love can avail of. Apart from the fact
that it defines, patriarchically and Thomistically, a relationship based on
a woman’s utility as a child-bearer, Marriage discriminates in favour of the
fortunate (those lucky enough to be linked through love), including through
tax advantages. Egalitarians would favour institutions that promote the less
fortunate, not institutions designed to enshrine iniquity. A radical and egal-
itarian agenda is to undermine state support – including financial support
– for, Marriage, not to extend the numbers who can benefit from the unfair
privilege. Children are a separate issue and the state should support them
generously and directly, not through advantaging the married.
The best interests of the children should be the overwhelming, overarch-
ing guide to parenting and adoption. There is no evidence that gay couples,
married or unmarried, provide inferior parenting. Or that well-supported
parenting by good single parents cannot serve the best interests of the chil-
dren. Therefore gays should have equal rights to adopt, but so too should
well-adjusted loving single people.
Gay rights yes; marriage rights no
State-sanctioned Marriage is a conservative, iniquitous institution – for anyone
Corrections and clarifications
The profile of Catherine Day in the April-May edition should have acknowledged the work of ENDS in establishing that she was blocking some
environmental measures.
The interview with Bunker Roy should have acknowledged that Sam McManus and Marcelo Biglia travelled to India with support from the Simon
Cumbers Media Fund.
The leader of North Korea is Kim Jong-un, not his predecessor, Kim Jong-il, as stated by Villager.
The article on Sensible Money was wrong.