Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 86, lines 7 to 12, to delete all words from and including "if ---" in line 7 down to and including "Act." in line 12 and substitute the following:

"if sexual activity between them would be an offence having regard to their age or the fact that they are relatives.".

Subsection 169(4) states: "For the purposes of this section, 2 adults are within a prohibited degree of relationship if (a) they would be prohibited from marring each other in the State." One of the impediments covered by this section is if couples are in a prohibited degree of relationship. This section does not apply if a couple would be prohibited from marrying each other in the State. Of course, every same-sex couple is prohibited from marrying in the State, under the Constitution. Is it the Minister's intention to exclude every same-sex couple from the provisions of this section?

There is a drafting problem here that needs to be addressed. Same-sex couples would be prohibited from marrying each other, as would anyone who was still married to a third party. Such a person would be excluded from marrying and, therefore, excluded from the definition of cohabitant in the Bill.

Is it the Minister's intention that opposite-sex couples would be covered by this section but that same-sex couples would not? Would the definition I put forward not better meet the impediment intended, as I understand it, that is, "if sexual activity between them would be an offence having regard to the age or the fact that they are relatives"? It is not that they are debarred from marrying but that they would be under age or there would be issues of consanguinity which would prevent their marriage in law. If that is not specified, the section will not apply to same-sex couples, who obviously cannot marry.

See this speech in context