CIVIL PARTNERSHIP & EQUALITY
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Report Stage (08/07/10)
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)(08/07/10)
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)(07/07/10)
Civil Partnership Bill Protest (02/07/10)
Civil Partnership Bill (17/06/10)
Civil Partnership Bill (27/05/08)
Civil Partnership Legislation (17/04/08)
Civil Marriage (27/02/08)
Civil Partnership Bill 2004 (16/02/05)
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Report Stage
08/07/10 - To my colleagues who tabled these amendments I say, “You just don’t get it.” If a reinforcing argument was needed for passing this legislation today, it is found in these two amendments. I have just re-read section 7 of the Equal Status Act which has similar wording ... Doing so brought back the sick feeling I had in my stomach when that legislation went through. …. I saw the law being abused for the past ten years to threaten, frighten and control people, especially teachers who had not come out in regard to their sexual orientation.
The idea that people celebrating their relationship cannot go and buy a box of burgers or whatever they want for a barbecue is appalling. It is only one step from not being allowed breathe the air or come into a room. It is appalling, distasteful and offensive. …. I ask my colleagues, having listened to the debate, to withdraw the amendments and not put this issue to a vote. It undermines all the arguments made. One cannot support those two
amendments and at the same time claim to support the rights of people who, in different ways, are the subject of this Bill. It does not add up. Both notions do not come together. It also proves another point which I have been making since 1977. Before one can change habits and attitudes one must change legislation. The Employment Equality Act 1977 did more to change attitudes than any other factor. No attitudes were changed until that came about.
If this measure were applied to any other group in society, whether Travellers or anyone else, people would be appalled. It is desperate. …. This is open sesame to discriminate. It is worse than anything in the Equal Status Act. Once again, it is proposed to give licence to people to run through the legislation. I appeal to my colleagues who tabled these extraordinarily distasteful, offensive and embarrassing amendments to withdraw them.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)
08/07/10 - Debates such as this allow people to pick and choose and make their arguments one after another. Lord Mackay may sound like a very innocent Member of the British House of Lords, a doddery old man etc. I just checked his voting record there. He has been violently and completely anti-gay rights all the time in the British House of Lords. Let us not speak from the point of view of being in favour of gay rights and then use examples of people who are bitterly opposed to gay rights, which is where Lord Mackay of Clashfern is coming from.
Senator Mullen raised the issue of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is important to consider some of the other articles, including Article 16, which states: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
I know Senator Mullen, as a lawyer, will say it mentions men and women and it is implied that it is men marrying women. That is not what the article states, which is as I just put on the record.
………….. The proposed amendment allows registrars to have a conscientious objection not just to civil partnerships, but also to marriage. In that regard alone it undermines the entire case put by previous speakers in its favour. ….. We have a long history of conscientious objection in this country. …. I made passing reference last night to the teaching of religion in schools. Very often during the appointments procedure a prospective teacher will be asked if he or she objects to teaching religion in order that he or she is sewn into that particular commitment. Alternatively they might not be asked…. People might genuinely lapse or evolve .. to atheism or agnosticism and find themselves in a position with which they are uncomfortable and might have a conscientious objection to the teaching of religion. In these cases people tend to take a practical view that it is part of what happens in the school and needs to be taught.
I was a primary school principal and whereas I would not have subscribed to the religious knowledge, I would have insisted as school principal that as we were there in loco parentis all children went through the programme and knew their stuff as well as anybody would expect them to do. I did not find that in any way cynical or ironic. It is part of a job. One gets in, does it, gets on with it and moves on. It is no big deal. ….. The teachers take the view that they are paid to do a job and should get on and do it. It is mathematics now and religious education next; get on and do it…. People might not like that and people like to think it comes from the heart in all cases; it does not. It does in some cases and it does not in others.
In Irish history we have dealt with this before. … an eminent cardinal and Archbishop of Dublin, who found himself in difficulty at times. His way of dealing with it, as he described to the entire world, was by establishing a mental reservation. He could do what he wanted without committing himself to what he was doing. It was a mental reservation. This has been done by the Catholic Church; it does not seem to cause a problem. I found it problematic. I say to my friends coming from the Catholic background that they might advise any registrars they know to have a difficulty that they can use that little device. It works and exists, I understand. Theology and Canon Law support it. The Pope in Rome does not have a difficulty with it. Who am I to give out about it? …… Those of my colleagues who come from a Catholic background and who are worried about that have the mental reservation device.
……… The reality is that this amendment is a bottle of smoke. It does not meet any particular needs of any group of which I am aware. It is rare for us to find an issue of pressing concern to a group of people being articulated by their public representatives but which has never been articulated by the group itself. Who are we talking about? Public servants are there to do a job. They sign up, they take the shilling and they follow the flag. They do their job as it is set out for them. In most work places, if people find they have a difficulty in doing some aspects of their job, they find ways around that.
People work together and tend not to steamroll each other into doing what they will not do. .... There is no difficulty in dealing with the perceived problem. I do not believe it is a real problem. The registrars have never articulated a problem. … It is a huge argument about nothing. It is an issue that does not concern anybody outside the few Members in here who raised it. They raised it for their own reasons.
As parliamentarians, we must recognise where this legislation is going. Were this amendment to be accepted, it would undermine the spirit and the operation of the legislation. It would also create moral hazard because it would allow, encourage and reward people for not doing their jobs. It would force extra work on other people who would have to pick up the slack from those who claim to have a conscientious objection. …. It is a kind of a scare tactic that was raised to add a bit of credence to an argument that was pretty threadbare. It was long and interesting, but it added little to the overall argument. I have not found a scintilla of argument or evidence put forward in the last two or three hours that would change my view on this amendment. We should just dispose of it and vote on it shortly.
We need to consider this issue in real world terms. …. To assist Senator Mullen and others, I will read again what is written in the section. It will apply to a registrar “who, without reasonable cause, fails or refuses to give a civil partnership registration form to one of the parties”. What happens before one reaches this point is the human relations aspect of the process ... If someone working in an office indicates to his or her boss that he or she is not prepared to carry out civil partnership functions or weddings, the boss then has a job to do, namely, find a local arrangement, transfer, sack or suspend the person or find another solution. We must bear in mind that a crime has not been committed and a human resources procedure is followed before one proceeds further. When someone refuses to carry out a function it must be dealt with locally. Sacking the person, as some Senators have suggested, could be much more costly than the maximum fine of €2,000 provided for in the section. The action taken will depend on the local arrangements in place. At that point, the civil registrar may simply refuse to carry out his or her function.
Why do we need the provisions of the section? It is not only a matter of scale, as a number of speakers suggested, but also one of aggravating circumstances. In many cases, a gay couple will not have a great deal of self-confidence in dealing with public matters of this nature. Not only could they be deprived of the civil partnership registration form, there could be aggravating circumstances, for instance, they could be led to believe that it is not possible for them to enter into a partnership or a form could be lost. The scale provided for is necessary to address such aggravating circumstances.
The issue is not one of a person refusing to hand over a piece of paper or sign a form but one of discrimination. I ask Senator Mullen or another opponent of the Bill to put a price on discrimination. At what point does a continuing contravention of the law by discriminating against a person fail to be important? If someone continues to hold an unlawful position, should we back off? While I do not envisage such a scenario, I am being forced to bring the hypothetical case to its conclusion. If there are aggravating circumstances, we must be able to measure them in terms of the response of the law. We are depriving a citizen of a legal right — rights we are putting in place with this legislation. Someone is being discriminated against. Someone is being deprived of his or her rights. Someone is not applying the law we are passing. Someone may not have dealt with this or agreed with any arrangement that was made previous to this in his or her office, whatever HR arrangements were there. This is all the background stuff. Things do not happen like that. As there is always a story behind a story, how would we get to it?
The other issue is moral hazard. The idea that we could put into legislation that someone can refuse to do an aspect of his or her job is inviting situations where people go forward. I am not talking about people with a conscientious objection….. I find it difficult to deal with that issue, but I am not talking about that. …. I am talking about someone who is too lazy to do his or her job and claims to have a moral objection. That is a moral hazard. It would open issues which would make it impossible to control because someone could claim to have a conscientious objection.
We need to allow for aggravating circumstances. I will not hear anyone say that the refusal is simply refusing to hand out a form. I want to hear it said that this is discrimination and deprivation of a legal right we are putting in place. We need equality before the law. It is important we respond to it in that way. I do not want to and I do not believe I will ever see anyone go to jail as a result of this. ….. It is not as if someone makes a mistake and finishes up in jail. There are many steps in between.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)
07/07/10 - I welcome the Minister. … I am very proud of him today as he introduces this legislation. ……. I believe in plain English. Section 172 of the Bill has to be adjusted. The Bill provides that civil partnership is not available to people “within the prohibited degrees of relationship”. Section 172 states that “2 adults are within a prohibited degree of relationship if .... they would be prohibited from marrying each other in the State”. That includes people of the same gender. I think that has to be changed. I think it will be challenged and there will be a problem with it.
I wish to speak about the issue of conscience. Those of us who deal with national school teachers who teach religious knowledge in schools have come across the issue day in, day out for the last 30 years. It might come as a surprise to the people of Ireland to learn that teachers all over Ireland teach religion every day even though they do not believe a word of it. I do not refer to all of them, but to some of them. They just get on with it. We should not get carried away about what can be done, or what does not need to be done.
This is a debate about society. In society’s wild and savage stage, people fought each other because they looked different or acted differently. At the football matches of today, supporters spit hate at each other. They share the same space at the football pitch but, like oil and water, they will never mix. As society moves on, difference is accommodated and respected. Perhaps there is parity of esteem and, at some stage, equality. During all of those stages, the real test is how society melds and blends. A true society or community should be like a precious stone, with many different facets, directions and reflections. Over many generations and centuries, it should grow and become more precious. At the end of that process of maturation, we should have a true society. Today’s debate is part of that process.
We are talking about the gay culture of Ireland. It may be described as a sub-culture — I hate that phrase — in the sense that gay people constitute a group within a group. The gay people of Ireland are being brought into society. That is really what today is about. I have had many arguments about the education of mutual understanding, with the objective of tolerance, in Northern Ireland. That is never enough. Tolerance is no longer an acceptable objective in society. It is not about multiculturalism and getting people to share the same space. It is not about having a Muslim school, a gay school, a Catholic school or a French school. It is about how people who are different engage with each other. The benchmark of a successful society is not the space it gives to its different parts — it is the quality of the engagement and participation of all the different groups. That is the measure. There is no other measure.
… I suggest that significant confusion between words like liberalism, progressivism, pluralism, interculturalism and multiculturalism has been a feature of this debate. Liberalism, in its true meaning, provides for an okay measure of the extent to which society is open, tolerant and free. Any attempt to create a culture in which everyone supports, adopts and buys into the same liberal agenda is anathema to, and the antithesis of, liberalism. We should rejoice in difference as an adornment of our society. It lifts and enriches rather than threatens our society. It is not something with which we have to cope reluctantly. We should not try to rein in those who are different. We should learn from difference, which enriches us on a daily basis. It is a welcome aspect of society.
Similarly, people who mock and sneer at conservative Catholicism are as objectionable to me as those who do the reverse. It is anathema to me. People have to open and respect each other’s different points of view. By engaging in argument with those who are different, across the floor of this House and elsewhere, we can bring about the creative tension that leads to progress in society. As we find our way forward, we can blend, design and create a better society. …. all change management is gradual and incremental. That is why I suggest that people who have problems with the Bill, but generally approve of it, should see it as a stage in our development and should support it.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill Protest
02/07/10 - I raise an issue which has concerned me all week, that is, the protest taking place outside the gates. I have been organising street protests all my life, but there are rules. It is unacceptable for any group to harangue, harass and threaten not only Members but also visitors to the Houses. Yesterday I saw a Member and her family being harassed and threatened by the people involved. I ask the Leader to bring this to the attention of the Superintendent. I realise that both he and the Garda have a difficult job to do, but those involved should understand that while in a democracy people should be encouraged to protest, there are rules, just as there are for everything else.
… on the Civil Partnership Bill. It is important that it has been passed by the Dáil and I look forward to it being brought before us next week. However, the bishops have a right to express their view. As a public representative, I welcome the views of any group, whether it be bishops or penitents, what they have to say and defend their right to express their view. We should engage and deal with them. However, the members of the group outside the gates seem to be urban guerrillas working in support of the same point of view. They are completely vicious, aggressive, nasty and totally preoccupied by the sexual habits in bed of gay people and various others issues that have been raised time and again. This is unacceptable. There is not an iota of humanity or Christianity among them. …. We should be brave enough to say this and I am prepared to say it to their faces. If I had had a microphone yesterday, I would have gone out and challenged them.
The Catholic hierarchy should recognise that, despite what they had said, the Bill was passed without a vote. This shows they are more in tune with the homophobic so-called Christians outside the gates than with the public representatives of the people. That should be a concern for everyone. It would be worthwhile to move them away from the gates, sit them down and read to them the Sermon on the Mount or God’s two great commandments, the second of which is to love thy neighbour. A lot of work remains to be done and we should outline our position clearly. While it is acceptable for people to protest, make their views known and put pressure on us, their behaviour is not acceptable. That is what politics is about. I do not mind when it happens to us, but it is simply not on when it happens to visitors and family members.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill
17/06/10 - The Catholic Church has finally been flushed out on the civil partnership issue. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform is to be congratulated for saying he is holding his position on it. The Green Party is holding its position on it also. Many have difficulties with the legislation and I have received many representations from people opposed to it. I have made the same point to everybody, namely, that if it is unconstitutional, they should show me the amendment that would make it constitutional. The matter should be dealt with in an appropriate, legislative way, not in an unfair discriminatory manner, as now proposed by the Catholic Church. We should hold a strong and firm line on the issue.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill
27/05/08 - It would be helpful if the Leader clarified the status of the Civil Partnership Bill 2004, which my colleague, Senator Norris, has pushed from the beginning. It has been suggested to us in quiet conversations that all is not well in the serried ranks of Fianna Fáil on this issue and that the Government is stepping back from the policy end because its Members are not as comfortable as heretofore. We certainly noticed that on the vote we previously took on the Bill. Perhaps the Leader can reassure us that the Government has not changed its position on that issue.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Legislation
17/04/08 - In the past year, we have had a number of debates on the question of civil partnerships, in respect of which there have been some extraordinary developments. Yesterday held an embarrassing moment when the Judiciary was required to fill the gaps in legislation left by the seemingly indolent politicians. Yesterday’s decision of the High Court, which I welcome, should not have been necessary. Rather, there should have been clear laws about civil partnership irrespective of whether people liked it. We have a responsibility to deal with the issue. There is no better benchmark of our ineffectiveness than to find that the Judiciary must make decisions on issues from which we run away.
One year ago, the House received the commitment that it would be given the heads of a Bill on this matter by 30 March 2008, but there has been none. My colleagues in the Green Party indicated a date of 30 March. This is a live issue. A woman from the Cathaoirleach’s Dáil constituency discussed the heartache, difficulties and pressures she and her family have been caused due to those in civil partnerships having no rights. For years, my colleague, Senator Norris, has pushed this issue time and again. It is disgraceful we are leaving a vacuum in legislation and that people must go to court to get mediation, decisions and authority. Yesterday’s landmark decision was welcome but should not have been required. We should have addressed the matter in legislation. It is sad that the promises given to my colleague, Senator Norris, have been welshed on by the Government.
Back to top of the page
Civil Marriage
27/02/08 - Senator Ó Murchú said this debate should be child-centred and I agree with him. In retrospect, we can agree on one document – the Proclamation of the Republic - whose fourth paragraph refers to cherishing all the children of the nation equally. Those who wrote the Proclamation were not talking about juveniles but about citizens of the State. It was probably the most powerful and fundamental comment ever made in the history of this State, although it has never been allowed into any of our Constitutions. Had it been inserted as a constitutional provision, it would not have been necessary to hold this debate. This is an issue of love, equality, rights and no more than that. Over the years, I have found it so difficult to witness the reluctance with which we share our rights with people who happen to be gay. It is despicable and I have never understood it. I can understand people wishing to protect the institutions of the State and various other institutions and processes by which we live, but I cannot understand the reluctance with which we share our rights in a democracy. It is wrong and I cannot cope with it.
I do not know the difference between civil partnership and civil marriage. I stand for making sure people have equal rights wherever they happen to be. It is as simple and fundamental as that. It is an ethical and moral matter, and may be also a Christian and constitutional matter. It is fundamentally an issue of humanity, which is where it must remain rooted. Senator Frances Fitzgerald referred to the woman from middle Ireland who spoke with absolute articulation on Prime Time, for the first time ever in the public eye, to say she wanted her deceased daughter’s child to be raised legally and properly by her daughter’s partner. I cannot see why that should create a difficulty for anybody in an honest and fair society. I am talking about the right of a gay person to sit in the front pew at the funeral mass of a deceased gay partner. That is not unreasonable. I would echo Senator Ó Murchú’s point about the right of a person to continue to live in the family home after the death of a gay partner who was the legal owner of the property. Who can argue with these matters and why are we waiting so long to deal with them?
It is easy for people to tell Senator Norris that he has gone too far but have we not learned the phrase “Too little, too late”? If this matter had been dealt with when it was promised and if we had grasped the nettle, we would not be at this stage but it always seems to happen this way. There is a clear understanding that honest and fair commitments were given which do not go beyond what any reasonable person would want. Let us not make a big issue of this, or some sort of deal-breaker in the citizenship we all share. Let us look at this matter in an honest, fair and balanced way. If we root our decision in humanity, fairness and equity it will become very easy indeed. I ask Senators to support the proposal by Senator Norris.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill 2004
16/02/05 - This Bill does not constitute gay marriage or any innovative or new kind of marriage. This Bill is what it claims to be and we get what it says on the tin, namely, civil registration. It represents a necessary response to the extraordinarily varied relationships which exist and develop in modern society. It is a reflection and recognition of what is. It is an acknowledgement of a need that society at all levels has recognised. This matter has been mentioned by the Judiciary and the churches, and has obviously been discussed by politicians in various democracies around the world. It is a reality which needs to be addressed. Tonight we are taking a first important step in this regard.
As well as being a response to the varied relationships that exist and develop in modern Irish society, its need has been created by an increasingly litigious and greedy society. While in previous generations people recognised, perhaps in a non-vocal way, the importance of relationships and of people living in a house in which they had spent 30, 40 or 50 years, we now find that survivors tend to grab what is left and break it up with no recognition of the importance of a surviving partner of a relationship other than a “normal marriage”.
The issues that need to be addressed are wide and varied. Many of us in the trade union movement have looked at the difficulties created by an inability to deal with pension rights in simple cases. If one partner from a married couple, which broke up after a certain number of years, got involved in another relationship and died after, let us say, 30 years, the surviving person in that subsequent relationship has no access to the pension to which he or she should have access in any normal or fair circumstances. What we are doing here is a reflection of the need for equity and fair play. We are trying to ensure that the public can enjoy fair access to property, pensions and adoption and that the laws in such areas are just. We should not bring to this discussion the emotive baggage that has destroyed the debate on gay marriage in the United States. While I should state that I support gay marriage, I stress that it is not under discussion this evening. It is easy for those who have worries in that regard to accept this Bill.
Senator Norris has done democracy and the Seanad a favour by proposing this Bill. This House was among the first fora to discuss AIDS, for example. Senator Norris has brought us a step forward by initiating this debate. I ask the House to recognise the importance of this debate and to pursue the matter in a consensual way, if possible.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Report Stage (08/07/10)
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)(08/07/10)
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)(07/07/10)
Civil Partnership Bill Protest (02/07/10)
Civil Partnership Bill (17/06/10)
Civil Partnership Bill (27/05/08)
Civil Partnership Legislation (17/04/08)
Civil Marriage (27/02/08)
Civil Partnership Bill 2004 (16/02/05)
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Report Stage
08/07/10 - To my colleagues who tabled these amendments I say, “You just don’t get it.” If a reinforcing argument was needed for passing this legislation today, it is found in these two amendments. I have just re-read section 7 of the Equal Status Act which has similar wording ... Doing so brought back the sick feeling I had in my stomach when that legislation went through. …. I saw the law being abused for the past ten years to threaten, frighten and control people, especially teachers who had not come out in regard to their sexual orientation.
The idea that people celebrating their relationship cannot go and buy a box of burgers or whatever they want for a barbecue is appalling. It is only one step from not being allowed breathe the air or come into a room. It is appalling, distasteful and offensive. …. I ask my colleagues, having listened to the debate, to withdraw the amendments and not put this issue to a vote. It undermines all the arguments made. One cannot support those two
amendments and at the same time claim to support the rights of people who, in different ways, are the subject of this Bill. It does not add up. Both notions do not come together. It also proves another point which I have been making since 1977. Before one can change habits and attitudes one must change legislation. The Employment Equality Act 1977 did more to change attitudes than any other factor. No attitudes were changed until that came about.
If this measure were applied to any other group in society, whether Travellers or anyone else, people would be appalled. It is desperate. …. This is open sesame to discriminate. It is worse than anything in the Equal Status Act. Once again, it is proposed to give licence to people to run through the legislation. I appeal to my colleagues who tabled these extraordinarily distasteful, offensive and embarrassing amendments to withdraw them.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)
08/07/10 - Debates such as this allow people to pick and choose and make their arguments one after another. Lord Mackay may sound like a very innocent Member of the British House of Lords, a doddery old man etc. I just checked his voting record there. He has been violently and completely anti-gay rights all the time in the British House of Lords. Let us not speak from the point of view of being in favour of gay rights and then use examples of people who are bitterly opposed to gay rights, which is where Lord Mackay of Clashfern is coming from.
Senator Mullen raised the issue of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is important to consider some of the other articles, including Article 16, which states: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
I know Senator Mullen, as a lawyer, will say it mentions men and women and it is implied that it is men marrying women. That is not what the article states, which is as I just put on the record.
………….. The proposed amendment allows registrars to have a conscientious objection not just to civil partnerships, but also to marriage. In that regard alone it undermines the entire case put by previous speakers in its favour. ….. We have a long history of conscientious objection in this country. …. I made passing reference last night to the teaching of religion in schools. Very often during the appointments procedure a prospective teacher will be asked if he or she objects to teaching religion in order that he or she is sewn into that particular commitment. Alternatively they might not be asked…. People might genuinely lapse or evolve .. to atheism or agnosticism and find themselves in a position with which they are uncomfortable and might have a conscientious objection to the teaching of religion. In these cases people tend to take a practical view that it is part of what happens in the school and needs to be taught.
I was a primary school principal and whereas I would not have subscribed to the religious knowledge, I would have insisted as school principal that as we were there in loco parentis all children went through the programme and knew their stuff as well as anybody would expect them to do. I did not find that in any way cynical or ironic. It is part of a job. One gets in, does it, gets on with it and moves on. It is no big deal. ….. The teachers take the view that they are paid to do a job and should get on and do it. It is mathematics now and religious education next; get on and do it…. People might not like that and people like to think it comes from the heart in all cases; it does not. It does in some cases and it does not in others.
In Irish history we have dealt with this before. … an eminent cardinal and Archbishop of Dublin, who found himself in difficulty at times. His way of dealing with it, as he described to the entire world, was by establishing a mental reservation. He could do what he wanted without committing himself to what he was doing. It was a mental reservation. This has been done by the Catholic Church; it does not seem to cause a problem. I found it problematic. I say to my friends coming from the Catholic background that they might advise any registrars they know to have a difficulty that they can use that little device. It works and exists, I understand. Theology and Canon Law support it. The Pope in Rome does not have a difficulty with it. Who am I to give out about it? …… Those of my colleagues who come from a Catholic background and who are worried about that have the mental reservation device.
……… The reality is that this amendment is a bottle of smoke. It does not meet any particular needs of any group of which I am aware. It is rare for us to find an issue of pressing concern to a group of people being articulated by their public representatives but which has never been articulated by the group itself. Who are we talking about? Public servants are there to do a job. They sign up, they take the shilling and they follow the flag. They do their job as it is set out for them. In most work places, if people find they have a difficulty in doing some aspects of their job, they find ways around that.
People work together and tend not to steamroll each other into doing what they will not do. .... There is no difficulty in dealing with the perceived problem. I do not believe it is a real problem. The registrars have never articulated a problem. … It is a huge argument about nothing. It is an issue that does not concern anybody outside the few Members in here who raised it. They raised it for their own reasons.
As parliamentarians, we must recognise where this legislation is going. Were this amendment to be accepted, it would undermine the spirit and the operation of the legislation. It would also create moral hazard because it would allow, encourage and reward people for not doing their jobs. It would force extra work on other people who would have to pick up the slack from those who claim to have a conscientious objection. …. It is a kind of a scare tactic that was raised to add a bit of credence to an argument that was pretty threadbare. It was long and interesting, but it added little to the overall argument. I have not found a scintilla of argument or evidence put forward in the last two or three hours that would change my view on this amendment. We should just dispose of it and vote on it shortly.
We need to consider this issue in real world terms. …. To assist Senator Mullen and others, I will read again what is written in the section. It will apply to a registrar “who, without reasonable cause, fails or refuses to give a civil partnership registration form to one of the parties”. What happens before one reaches this point is the human relations aspect of the process ... If someone working in an office indicates to his or her boss that he or she is not prepared to carry out civil partnership functions or weddings, the boss then has a job to do, namely, find a local arrangement, transfer, sack or suspend the person or find another solution. We must bear in mind that a crime has not been committed and a human resources procedure is followed before one proceeds further. When someone refuses to carry out a function it must be dealt with locally. Sacking the person, as some Senators have suggested, could be much more costly than the maximum fine of €2,000 provided for in the section. The action taken will depend on the local arrangements in place. At that point, the civil registrar may simply refuse to carry out his or her function.
Why do we need the provisions of the section? It is not only a matter of scale, as a number of speakers suggested, but also one of aggravating circumstances. In many cases, a gay couple will not have a great deal of self-confidence in dealing with public matters of this nature. Not only could they be deprived of the civil partnership registration form, there could be aggravating circumstances, for instance, they could be led to believe that it is not possible for them to enter into a partnership or a form could be lost. The scale provided for is necessary to address such aggravating circumstances.
The issue is not one of a person refusing to hand over a piece of paper or sign a form but one of discrimination. I ask Senator Mullen or another opponent of the Bill to put a price on discrimination. At what point does a continuing contravention of the law by discriminating against a person fail to be important? If someone continues to hold an unlawful position, should we back off? While I do not envisage such a scenario, I am being forced to bring the hypothetical case to its conclusion. If there are aggravating circumstances, we must be able to measure them in terms of the response of the law. We are depriving a citizen of a legal right — rights we are putting in place with this legislation. Someone is being discriminated against. Someone is being deprived of his or her rights. Someone is not applying the law we are passing. Someone may not have dealt with this or agreed with any arrangement that was made previous to this in his or her office, whatever HR arrangements were there. This is all the background stuff. Things do not happen like that. As there is always a story behind a story, how would we get to it?
The other issue is moral hazard. The idea that we could put into legislation that someone can refuse to do an aspect of his or her job is inviting situations where people go forward. I am not talking about people with a conscientious objection….. I find it difficult to deal with that issue, but I am not talking about that. …. I am talking about someone who is too lazy to do his or her job and claims to have a moral objection. That is a moral hazard. It would open issues which would make it impossible to control because someone could claim to have a conscientious objection.
We need to allow for aggravating circumstances. I will not hear anyone say that the refusal is simply refusing to hand out a form. I want to hear it said that this is discrimination and deprivation of a legal right we are putting in place. We need equality before the law. It is important we respond to it in that way. I do not want to and I do not believe I will ever see anyone go to jail as a result of this. ….. It is not as if someone makes a mistake and finishes up in jail. There are many steps in between.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)
07/07/10 - I welcome the Minister. … I am very proud of him today as he introduces this legislation. ……. I believe in plain English. Section 172 of the Bill has to be adjusted. The Bill provides that civil partnership is not available to people “within the prohibited degrees of relationship”. Section 172 states that “2 adults are within a prohibited degree of relationship if .... they would be prohibited from marrying each other in the State”. That includes people of the same gender. I think that has to be changed. I think it will be challenged and there will be a problem with it.
I wish to speak about the issue of conscience. Those of us who deal with national school teachers who teach religious knowledge in schools have come across the issue day in, day out for the last 30 years. It might come as a surprise to the people of Ireland to learn that teachers all over Ireland teach religion every day even though they do not believe a word of it. I do not refer to all of them, but to some of them. They just get on with it. We should not get carried away about what can be done, or what does not need to be done.
This is a debate about society. In society’s wild and savage stage, people fought each other because they looked different or acted differently. At the football matches of today, supporters spit hate at each other. They share the same space at the football pitch but, like oil and water, they will never mix. As society moves on, difference is accommodated and respected. Perhaps there is parity of esteem and, at some stage, equality. During all of those stages, the real test is how society melds and blends. A true society or community should be like a precious stone, with many different facets, directions and reflections. Over many generations and centuries, it should grow and become more precious. At the end of that process of maturation, we should have a true society. Today’s debate is part of that process.
We are talking about the gay culture of Ireland. It may be described as a sub-culture — I hate that phrase — in the sense that gay people constitute a group within a group. The gay people of Ireland are being brought into society. That is really what today is about. I have had many arguments about the education of mutual understanding, with the objective of tolerance, in Northern Ireland. That is never enough. Tolerance is no longer an acceptable objective in society. It is not about multiculturalism and getting people to share the same space. It is not about having a Muslim school, a gay school, a Catholic school or a French school. It is about how people who are different engage with each other. The benchmark of a successful society is not the space it gives to its different parts — it is the quality of the engagement and participation of all the different groups. That is the measure. There is no other measure.
… I suggest that significant confusion between words like liberalism, progressivism, pluralism, interculturalism and multiculturalism has been a feature of this debate. Liberalism, in its true meaning, provides for an okay measure of the extent to which society is open, tolerant and free. Any attempt to create a culture in which everyone supports, adopts and buys into the same liberal agenda is anathema to, and the antithesis of, liberalism. We should rejoice in difference as an adornment of our society. It lifts and enriches rather than threatens our society. It is not something with which we have to cope reluctantly. We should not try to rein in those who are different. We should learn from difference, which enriches us on a daily basis. It is a welcome aspect of society.
Similarly, people who mock and sneer at conservative Catholicism are as objectionable to me as those who do the reverse. It is anathema to me. People have to open and respect each other’s different points of view. By engaging in argument with those who are different, across the floor of this House and elsewhere, we can bring about the creative tension that leads to progress in society. As we find our way forward, we can blend, design and create a better society. …. all change management is gradual and incremental. That is why I suggest that people who have problems with the Bill, but generally approve of it, should see it as a stage in our development and should support it.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill Protest
02/07/10 - I raise an issue which has concerned me all week, that is, the protest taking place outside the gates. I have been organising street protests all my life, but there are rules. It is unacceptable for any group to harangue, harass and threaten not only Members but also visitors to the Houses. Yesterday I saw a Member and her family being harassed and threatened by the people involved. I ask the Leader to bring this to the attention of the Superintendent. I realise that both he and the Garda have a difficult job to do, but those involved should understand that while in a democracy people should be encouraged to protest, there are rules, just as there are for everything else.
… on the Civil Partnership Bill. It is important that it has been passed by the Dáil and I look forward to it being brought before us next week. However, the bishops have a right to express their view. As a public representative, I welcome the views of any group, whether it be bishops or penitents, what they have to say and defend their right to express their view. We should engage and deal with them. However, the members of the group outside the gates seem to be urban guerrillas working in support of the same point of view. They are completely vicious, aggressive, nasty and totally preoccupied by the sexual habits in bed of gay people and various others issues that have been raised time and again. This is unacceptable. There is not an iota of humanity or Christianity among them. …. We should be brave enough to say this and I am prepared to say it to their faces. If I had had a microphone yesterday, I would have gone out and challenged them.
The Catholic hierarchy should recognise that, despite what they had said, the Bill was passed without a vote. This shows they are more in tune with the homophobic so-called Christians outside the gates than with the public representatives of the people. That should be a concern for everyone. It would be worthwhile to move them away from the gates, sit them down and read to them the Sermon on the Mount or God’s two great commandments, the second of which is to love thy neighbour. A lot of work remains to be done and we should outline our position clearly. While it is acceptable for people to protest, make their views known and put pressure on us, their behaviour is not acceptable. That is what politics is about. I do not mind when it happens to us, but it is simply not on when it happens to visitors and family members.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill
17/06/10 - The Catholic Church has finally been flushed out on the civil partnership issue. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform is to be congratulated for saying he is holding his position on it. The Green Party is holding its position on it also. Many have difficulties with the legislation and I have received many representations from people opposed to it. I have made the same point to everybody, namely, that if it is unconstitutional, they should show me the amendment that would make it constitutional. The matter should be dealt with in an appropriate, legislative way, not in an unfair discriminatory manner, as now proposed by the Catholic Church. We should hold a strong and firm line on the issue.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill
27/05/08 - It would be helpful if the Leader clarified the status of the Civil Partnership Bill 2004, which my colleague, Senator Norris, has pushed from the beginning. It has been suggested to us in quiet conversations that all is not well in the serried ranks of Fianna Fáil on this issue and that the Government is stepping back from the policy end because its Members are not as comfortable as heretofore. We certainly noticed that on the vote we previously took on the Bill. Perhaps the Leader can reassure us that the Government has not changed its position on that issue.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Legislation
17/04/08 - In the past year, we have had a number of debates on the question of civil partnerships, in respect of which there have been some extraordinary developments. Yesterday held an embarrassing moment when the Judiciary was required to fill the gaps in legislation left by the seemingly indolent politicians. Yesterday’s decision of the High Court, which I welcome, should not have been necessary. Rather, there should have been clear laws about civil partnership irrespective of whether people liked it. We have a responsibility to deal with the issue. There is no better benchmark of our ineffectiveness than to find that the Judiciary must make decisions on issues from which we run away.
One year ago, the House received the commitment that it would be given the heads of a Bill on this matter by 30 March 2008, but there has been none. My colleagues in the Green Party indicated a date of 30 March. This is a live issue. A woman from the Cathaoirleach’s Dáil constituency discussed the heartache, difficulties and pressures she and her family have been caused due to those in civil partnerships having no rights. For years, my colleague, Senator Norris, has pushed this issue time and again. It is disgraceful we are leaving a vacuum in legislation and that people must go to court to get mediation, decisions and authority. Yesterday’s landmark decision was welcome but should not have been required. We should have addressed the matter in legislation. It is sad that the promises given to my colleague, Senator Norris, have been welshed on by the Government.
Back to top of the page
Civil Marriage
27/02/08 - Senator Ó Murchú said this debate should be child-centred and I agree with him. In retrospect, we can agree on one document – the Proclamation of the Republic - whose fourth paragraph refers to cherishing all the children of the nation equally. Those who wrote the Proclamation were not talking about juveniles but about citizens of the State. It was probably the most powerful and fundamental comment ever made in the history of this State, although it has never been allowed into any of our Constitutions. Had it been inserted as a constitutional provision, it would not have been necessary to hold this debate. This is an issue of love, equality, rights and no more than that. Over the years, I have found it so difficult to witness the reluctance with which we share our rights with people who happen to be gay. It is despicable and I have never understood it. I can understand people wishing to protect the institutions of the State and various other institutions and processes by which we live, but I cannot understand the reluctance with which we share our rights in a democracy. It is wrong and I cannot cope with it.
I do not know the difference between civil partnership and civil marriage. I stand for making sure people have equal rights wherever they happen to be. It is as simple and fundamental as that. It is an ethical and moral matter, and may be also a Christian and constitutional matter. It is fundamentally an issue of humanity, which is where it must remain rooted. Senator Frances Fitzgerald referred to the woman from middle Ireland who spoke with absolute articulation on Prime Time, for the first time ever in the public eye, to say she wanted her deceased daughter’s child to be raised legally and properly by her daughter’s partner. I cannot see why that should create a difficulty for anybody in an honest and fair society. I am talking about the right of a gay person to sit in the front pew at the funeral mass of a deceased gay partner. That is not unreasonable. I would echo Senator Ó Murchú’s point about the right of a person to continue to live in the family home after the death of a gay partner who was the legal owner of the property. Who can argue with these matters and why are we waiting so long to deal with them?
It is easy for people to tell Senator Norris that he has gone too far but have we not learned the phrase “Too little, too late”? If this matter had been dealt with when it was promised and if we had grasped the nettle, we would not be at this stage but it always seems to happen this way. There is a clear understanding that honest and fair commitments were given which do not go beyond what any reasonable person would want. Let us not make a big issue of this, or some sort of deal-breaker in the citizenship we all share. Let us look at this matter in an honest, fair and balanced way. If we root our decision in humanity, fairness and equity it will become very easy indeed. I ask Senators to support the proposal by Senator Norris.
Back to top of the page
Civil Partnership Bill 2004
16/02/05 - This Bill does not constitute gay marriage or any innovative or new kind of marriage. This Bill is what it claims to be and we get what it says on the tin, namely, civil registration. It represents a necessary response to the extraordinarily varied relationships which exist and develop in modern society. It is a reflection and recognition of what is. It is an acknowledgement of a need that society at all levels has recognised. This matter has been mentioned by the Judiciary and the churches, and has obviously been discussed by politicians in various democracies around the world. It is a reality which needs to be addressed. Tonight we are taking a first important step in this regard.
As well as being a response to the varied relationships that exist and develop in modern Irish society, its need has been created by an increasingly litigious and greedy society. While in previous generations people recognised, perhaps in a non-vocal way, the importance of relationships and of people living in a house in which they had spent 30, 40 or 50 years, we now find that survivors tend to grab what is left and break it up with no recognition of the importance of a surviving partner of a relationship other than a “normal marriage”.
The issues that need to be addressed are wide and varied. Many of us in the trade union movement have looked at the difficulties created by an inability to deal with pension rights in simple cases. If one partner from a married couple, which broke up after a certain number of years, got involved in another relationship and died after, let us say, 30 years, the surviving person in that subsequent relationship has no access to the pension to which he or she should have access in any normal or fair circumstances. What we are doing here is a reflection of the need for equity and fair play. We are trying to ensure that the public can enjoy fair access to property, pensions and adoption and that the laws in such areas are just. We should not bring to this discussion the emotive baggage that has destroyed the debate on gay marriage in the United States. While I should state that I support gay marriage, I stress that it is not under discussion this evening. It is easy for those who have worries in that regard to accept this Bill.
Senator Norris has done democracy and the Seanad a favour by proposing this Bill. This House was among the first fora to discuss AIDS, for example. Senator Norris has brought us a step forward by initiating this debate. I ask the House to recognise the importance of this debate and to pursue the matter in a consensual way, if possible.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website