CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
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 Legislation (17/04/08)
Civil Marriage (27/02/08)
Civil Partnership Bill 2004 (16/02/05)
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 Legislation (17/04/08)
Civil Marriage (27/02/08)
Civil Partnership Bill 2004 (16/02/05)
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