David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and, in particular, the sensitive language in which his speech was couched, although some of the claims made regarding full equality were a little exaggerated. I warmly welcome the superb and moving speeches made by the spokespersons for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Senators McDonald and Regan, respectively.

For most of my life, including most of my adult life, I was branded as a criminal by ancient and alien laws for something over which I had as little control as the colour of my skin. I was what was known in those prim days before gay liberation as a "homosexual". At one time I was both technically a known criminal and a Member of this House at the same time, yet I have come through to this week when we shall see the passage of a Bill that will give a degree of recognition to same-sex couples. That is certainly a remarkable and radical transformation to be experienced by any human being.

This is an historic debate and I shall do my best to understand and respect its historic nature. I will do so by dealing honestly, openly and sincerely with the truth and facts, rather than the hollow debating points employed by some who are opposed to the extension of civil rights to gay couples. Let me be clear about one thing. There is nothing visionary in the legislation, nor is there anything revolutionary about it. An historic opportunity has been missed. From being among the leaders, we are now among the laggards of Europe in this regard, falling behind not only the Netherlands and all the Scandinavian countries but even Catholic Spain which has introduced full civil marriage for same-sex couples without society falling apart. This legislation does not grant equality; it merely improves the second-class status of gay people in some practical ways.

Let us not have any sanctimonious hand-wringing about supposed unconstitutionality. Authoritative opinion obtained some years ago by the Law Reform Commission held that legislation in this area would only be unconstitutional if it purported to give greater powers to the new institution than were already given to existing marriage. That the Constitution, as it stands, is open to same-sex marriage is made clear by the fact that as far back as the conservative 1960s, a very eminent lawyer, Mr. Declan Costello, in his review of the Constitution expressed concern that the Constitution, as it then stood, was clearly open to the interpretation that same-sex marriage was legal because marriage was not defined as being between a man and a woman.

Opponents of social advance have never allowed logic or reason to cloud the clarity of their prejudice. These are the very same groups which but a few decades ago accused the gay community of being incapable of sustaining relationships and addicted to compulsive promiscuity instead. Now it appears that the plain desire of many within the gay community to settle down and make a commitment in a relationship disturbs them just as much as did their former grievance.

The first and most important of my reservations regarding the Bill is the complete abdication by its drafters of moral responsibility for the welfare of children. Yesterday evening I received the comments of the Ombudsman for Children in a report which strongly endorses my position and calls for amendments of the kind I have tabled. One would have thought that given the history of this country in the past 100 years, in respect of which successive reports have conclusively proved that both the Church and State were guilty of the most horrendous crimes against children - actively, by neglect or turning a blind eye to their suffering - neither the Church nor the State would dare prejudice the innocence of children once again. Let us be clear about the facts and cut through the deliberate and misleading obfuscation that has been created by elements within a number of the Christian traditions. First, children can and already have been adopted by gay people. They can only be adopted singly, however, which means quite starkly that if the legally adopting parent dies, the surviving parent who has helped to rear, nourish and parent the child is instantly cut off in the legal sense. Much worse than that the child himself or herself has no connection with the surviving parent and is cast adrift. What is this except child abuse? Let no one say this was done unawares for I and others have made the situation very clear. Even the Roman Catholic Church has abolished limbo and yet the State of Ireland, with this legislation, has brought it back again for a minority of our most vulnerable children.

Two letters appeared in The Irish Times on Monday on the subject of the impact of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill. The contrast could not be greater. The first from David Wilkins states disappointment and betrayal. He so wanted to celebrate, to dance in the street and to be able to get married as a gay man. So much has been granted in the Bill, but that last piece which would allow him to celebrate and dance has been callously withheld. The other letter from David Nelson points to the pontifical yearbook 2010 to calculate the statistical increase in the number of Roman Catholics on the planet. He is pleased to note that the church continues to increase both in nominal membership and as a percentage of the global population pointing out there are now more than 1.166 billion Roman Catholics in the world, representing 17.4% of the global population. This is a vast number and in the numbers game so often played, this time by Mr. Nelson, he believes that this alone confers moral authority and democratic sanctions. He reminds us of the instruction issued in March 2003 by Pope John Paul II that Roman Catholic law makers in whatever country throughout the globe must express opposition clearly and publicly and vote against any civil partnership legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church is a chameleon-like entity. It is at one and the same time one of the great religious traditions historically and by far the largest of the Christian denominations. The Pope is its spiritual leader, but he is also head of a tiny state unusual in its microscopic size, its religious nature and the fact that the entire population is celibate. Despite this, the Pope occupies this dual position, acting sometimes as Bishop of Rome and sometimes as master of the shrivelled remnant of the former Papal States in Italy. Presumably it was acting in this capacity as a secular Head of State that the Pope issued his instruction to legislators. I will not castigate the Pope or criticise him, but I will ask my colleagues to consider what the situation would have been had any other Head of State or any other ambassador instructed duly elected representatives as to how they should respond to legislative proposals of an independent democratic government. Neither is this a back number. This specific instruction has been mentioned repeatedly in the sometimes obscene and vitriolic correspondence I have received in my office from various elements of the reactionary rump of Christendom.

Gay people cannot marry, but murderers, child abusers, burglars, bank robbers, ex-priests and ex-nuns can marry. I, a Member of this House in good standing, have no such right. I find myself in the position that is complained of universally within the gay community of being deprived of full equality.

My second objection to the Bill is to the language. There is a nasty, mean-spirited separation between gay people and the rest of the population which militates against their full equality in terms of the language used to describe living arrangements. For heterosexual couples, whether they be married, cohabiting or partnered, their dwelling place is to be called the family home, whereas in a gesture of contempt towards the gay community, for same-sex couples the home is merely to be described as "shared", like a seat on the bus or a visit to the cinema. This is despite the fact that even with its recent skewing towards the conservative right, the European Court of Human Rights has found that two persons of the same sex living together in a committed relationship form a de facto family. Under this law that the Minister thinks generous, we are not to have legal rights to children, even our own children, we are not even to have marriage, and we are not even to have a family home. Everything is to be temporary, partial and second rate.

In defence of these positions it is sometimes argued that to rear a child in a same-sex relationship is to cause him or her damage. I would like to place on the record of the House the report of the commission appointed by the Swedish Parliament in 1999 to investigate the situation of children in homosexual families. Its conclusion was as follows:

The combined research shows that children with homosexual parents have developed psychologically and socially in a similar way to the children with whom they were compared. Nor did any differences emerge as regards the children in terms of sexual development. For some children conflicts may arise at certain stages of growing up that are related to their parents' sexual preferences. These mainly relate to the fact that in the early teens they may experience their parents' homosexual preference as a problem in relation to peer groups and children of the same age. Research shows the children's ability to handle such conflicts depends on how their relationship is to their parents. Children growing up in a loving environment with the child as the focus of its parents' love and care are well equipped to handle crises and problems of this kind. Nor have any differences emerged from the research between homosexual and heterosexual parents as regards their ability to offer children good nurturing and care.

The report continues: "In the light of what has emerged in the research in the field the Commission considers that the legal differences that exist today regarding homosexual and heterosexual couples' ability to adopt are no longer objectively justified.

The same is true throughout Scandinavia with regard to the supposed detrimental effect upon marriage of allowing for the marriage of same-sex couples. The statistics unambiguously demonstrate that the rate of decline in marriage has become considerably less severe and in some years and in some countries actually reversed after the introduction of same-sex marriage. Is this not logical in any case? What else would one expect? The same values that lead gay people to seek commitment are those very values that are cherished in marriage. Instead of being the antagonists and opponents of marriage, gay people are turning into some of its most effective and ardent advocates. Indeed there is evidence, some of it anecdotal in terms of specific case histories, some statistical, to show that a certain percentage of cohabiting heterosexual couples were inspired in the Scandinavian countries to enter into the fuller commitment of marriage by the example of their gay friends.

There has been a very sinister and deliberate attempt by those who wish to deny full rights to their fellow citizens for specious reasons to co-opt the language of liberation, tolerance and human rights as a mask for prejudice. I completely reject their right to so do. The shadow of the Penal Laws has been invoked by opponents of the Bill. I have personal experience of penal laws. As I said at the beginning of this speech, I grew up in this country at a time when my very nature made me a criminal. This was not an empty threat. Many people were jailed. I know for I analysed the Garda statistics on crime at the time and I dealt with many people who were brought to court for the private expression of sexual feelings. People were jailed and lost jobs and family. People were referred to forced psychiatric treatment. People were subjected against their will to electroconvulsive shock therapy and aversion therapy. As a result, the gay community has historically displayed unusually high levels of suicide and addiction, which is not surprising when they were subjected so often to criminal blackmail.

I find myself in an unusual position for someone of my social background. I have known six people who were murdered. They were murdered specifically and solely because of their sexual orientation. I doubt if this unenviable record can be matched by any other Member of this House. That, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú, is what penal laws achieve. I think it a shame that anyone in this House should seek to rescue from oblivion the slightest fragment of such laws.