Dr. Thomas Finegan:

That are the other grounds under which there may be some sort of constitutional question mark. In respect of the privileged status of marriage within the Constitution as well as the best interests of the child, one could not with any degree of reasonableness dismiss that possibility. It is a genuine possibility. There is no sense that marriage is taken seriously as a privileged institution. One need only compare the general scheme here with our adoption law. Adoption law provides that only a married couple can jointly adopt whereas pretty much any combination or adults considered singly can avail of a right to a child under this general scheme. A right to a child itself is a very radical proposal. It is a new right that is not recognised in many jurisdictions and is quite radical.

It has been mentioned that there is such a thing as a right of single people to adopt under Irish adoption law. There is a bit of divergence between what Irish adoption law provides in its textual provisions and what may be happening as a matter of practice. In Ireland, there is a lesser right for a single person to adopt a child. That is framed in the context of particular circumstances when it is in the best interests of the child whereas there is a far clearer and stronger right for a married couple to jointly adopt. If one looks back on the original drafting of the Adoption Act 1991, one can see that the reason that a right was granted to single people to adopt in particular circumstances was to cater for very exceptional circumstances, as the Minister at that time put it. He expressly put on the record a situation where an Irish nurse working in Ukraine might wish to adopt an orphan. Perhaps practice has expanded upon that but if it has done so, it has diverged from the text of Irish adoption law. I submit that the reason Irish adoption law is constituted as it is because it has had recourse to trying to value and respect the privileged status of marriage.