As appeared in Letters – The Kerryman – 17
February, 2015 edition
Usually when I add a published letter to my blog I just put up whatever text was actually published. I don’t include the original letter or even mention how an editor may have chosen to edit it. It is always their prerogative to change a letter, either for brevity or to avoid a libel. I think that’s a frustrating but perfectly understandable policy. I’ve also never felt it necessary to refer to the letter (if there was one) that I was replying to.
In this instance however I feel the need to do things differently. The letter I replied to, was so ugly, so nakedly discriminatory that even ten days later it is picking away at me. I only wish The Kerryman had more of an online presence so I could link to it. Instead I will quote from the letter.
It was about surrogacy, addressed to Kerry’s election candidates and was signed by over 40 people. Yep, over forty.
“…the Bill would enable male couples to ‘have’ a child using the services of a surrogate. That child…would be left without a mother to love and care for him..”
“…he may struggle with feelings of loss and abandonment..”
“…this painful outcome…would be the inevitable consequence of two men calmly deciding to conceive a child in that way.”
“…this heartbreaking scenario…”
“…the child will suffer in her absence.”
“…heart-rending outcomes…”
“…children will suffer.”
“We ask now that the possibility of ‘surrogacy for men’…be definitively ruled out…”
“…this unconscionable policy.”
I don’t think this letter can be interpreted as anything other than the ‘h’ word, but as we are not allowed to use that word anymore, homophobes being famously thin skinned and litigious, we must settle for discriminatory. Calling for gay men to be excluded from accessing a particular service because you know, gay men, strikes me as being the dictionary definition of discriminatory.
Despite my anger and disgust, I penned what I consider to be a very mild rebuke. It pained me to be so retrained, but I didn’t want to give the newspaper any excuse not to publish it. I do support free speech, so I have no problem with the above letter being published, but I am aware that free speech in this country only extends to saying homophobic things, but not to calling someone a homophobe.
This is the letter I sent:
I was surprised to read (Letters 10 Feb) a letter urging our TDs to discriminate against gay men. Many people had perhaps assumed such naked prejudice was a thing of the past. Obviously this is not the case. Fortunately, as with most demands for discrimination, there’s little in the way of facts in support of this call.
As was repeatedly stated during the Marriage Equality Referendum, every study to date has shown children raised by same-sex couples thrive in the same way as their peers raised by opposite-sex couples. This evidence was presented to the people of Kerry during the referendum. They overwhelmingly accepted it. Rejecting the unfounded scaremongering of those opposed to equality.
Surrogacy is a complex and sensitive issue, worthy of informed debate. It should not be used as a ploy to rehash Marriage Equality. That argument has been won and those who lost, should find the courage to move on.
This is what was published:
I was surprised to read (Letters 10 Feb) a letter urging our TDs to “publicly oppose” “surrogacy for men”. Many people had perhaps assumed such views were a thing of the past. Obviously this is not the case.
As was repeatedly stated during the Marriage Equality Referendum, every study to date has shown children raised by same-sex couples thrive in the same way as their peers raised by opposite-sex couples. This evidence was presented to the people of Kerry during the referendum. They overwhelmingly accepted it, rejecting the unfounded scaremongering of those opposed to equality.
Surrogacy is a complex and sensitive issue, worthy of informed debate. It should not be used as a ploy to rehash Marriage Equality. That argument has been won and those who lost, should move on.
