Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Like previous speakers, I wish to express my delight at the result, the day that was in it and the campaign. The indication is that we have moved very much towards an inclusive Ireland and an inclusive republic. For many people, especially those who have been campaigning for a long time for this issue as well as those who have been campaigning more recently, the vote was indicative of a tolerant Ireland and a desire by the citizenry to express tolerance and accommodate other people, as well as ensuring that other people enjoy the same protections in their lives that many heterosexuals have taken for granted.

Equality is one thing. Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the speed with which she has brought the Bill forward and I congratulate her Department on the speed with which those involved have drafted it and responded to what was a momentous and historic day.

Now we are all equal and we can all get married equally. Unfortunately, though, we cannot all get married equally, because there is a problem in Ireland in the sense that if a couple want to have a non-religious or State marriage, effectively, they have to do it between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. This is because the registration of births, deaths and marriages is carried out by the HSE. There are provisions in the 2004 Act to enable the HSE to set a fee for marriages outside HSE venues or non-HSE hours. However, the HSE does not do so because it does not have the human resources or staff to marry people outside office hours, that is, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. The great majority of religious marriages take place outside office hours, except, perhaps, during holiday periods. Since people, by and large, need to take time off work for the event, the great majority of marriages take place at weekends. Therefore, perhaps not in a legislative sense but from the point of view of resources, we need to ensure that people can enter a civil marriage at weekends and at a venue of their choosing, once the venue meets the approval of the HSE and is accessible to all, etc.

The HSE has indicated that it does not have the necessary resources. I have written to the Minister for Social Protection and various other Ministers. I have been told that the HSE does not have the resources because we have an economic crisis and there is a staffing embargo and so on. I accept all of that, but there is a potential solution and it is a solution I am keen for the Minister to consider. Perhaps peace commissioners or commissioners for oaths could be allowed to carry out or solemnise civil marriages. The same safeguards would be in place as those which exist now for all HSE marriages. At present, people have to give notice three months in advance and so on. This means the HSE is in a position to say that it does not approve of a given marriage because it falls within the category of relationships involving people who are not allowed to marry, because a given person has been previously married or because it is a sham marriage. Legislation has been passed through this House for that reason. All of these safeguards would still exist. The only difference is that the marriage could be carried out in a venue and at a time of a couple's choosing. We are allowing homosexual people to marry and the day of the result was a great day and Members have been almost unanimous in saying that it was a good day in our Republic. We should allow them to marry, like straight people, at weekends or at a time of their choosing. I call on the Minister to consider that.

Another point might be somewhat more controversial. I read a quote from Peter Tatchell, a well-known gay rights activist in the United Kingdom, who stated:

Many male-female couples (and same-sex ones) don't like the sexist, homophobic history of marriage. They are turned off by the antiquated language of husband and wife. They'd prefer a civil partnership; finding it more egalitarian and modern. They don't want to be married.

There are many people who do not want to be married but who are in stable relationships. These people want legal recognition and protection for their relationships, and above all for the other person in that relationship should anything happen to either of them. Up to now, gay people have had the option of civil partnership. In fact, they did not really have the option; it was their only option. They could not marry because of the interpretation of the Constitution, as accepted by this House. We are now allowing gay people to marry. That is a great step forward but it does not mean that gay people who do not want to marry - there are many gay people who do not want to marry but want protection for their relationship - should no longer be able to enter into a civil partnership. Similarly, I know of heterosexual couples in a stable relationship who do not like the idea of marriage.

They do not like the terms "husband" and "wife" or the religious connotations. There are, of course, religious connotations to marriage, although the institution of marriage predates Christianity and is fundamentally a Roman institution that was absorbed into Catholic theology and canon law. It was governed by ecclesiastical law until relatively recently. Many people still wish to enter into a civil partnership.

The purpose of this Bill is primarily to allow gay people to marry. I congratulate and support the Minister on that, but I wonder if we need to get rid of the option of civil partnerships. This issue was debated at great length in the United Kingdom, which maintained civil partnerships exclusively for homosexual couples. It was not extended to heterosexual couples, but I wonder why we cannot have civil partnerships for gay and straight couples alike. There might be a question mark about whether such an approach would be seen as an attack on the institution of marriage, which is protected by the Constitution, but I do not accept that as valid because civil partnerships already exist and, therefore, are constitutional and not an attack on the institution of marriage. Therefore, how could it be unconstitutional to maintain civil partnerships?

Cohabitees enjoy certain rights, albeit not as advanced as those in civil partnerships. If that policy is not an attack on the institution of marriage, how could allowing civil partnerships to continue somehow be an attack on the institution of marriage? Marriage is still a much more stable long-term institution, as the Constitution requires. A couple must prove that a marriage has irreconcilably broken down before it can be dissolved, but that does not have to be proved to the same extent for a civil partnership.

The votes cast by the Irish people and the campaigns run by the main parties in this House, including Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, were very much about inclusion, tolerance and accommodation. It was not a case of "Let's buttress the institution of marriage," and "Let's not accommodate people who don't want to get married." It was very much about recognising the fact that there is now a wide variety of families in Ireland which should be accommodated. It was also about accepting that society has moved on and that people live in varied ways, about accepting and accommodating as many people as possible and about providing families with legal protection. Rather than abolishing civil partnerships, the option should be extended to heterosexual couples, something which would better advance the spirit of the vote on the day.

Yesterday a colleague told me the glass was always half-empty with me, but I do not wish to appear like that today because this is not a case of the glass being half-empty. The glass is very much half-full. We now have an opportunity to fill the glass until it brims over. As colleagues on Opposition and Government benches have said, it was a momentous day, and we should encapsulate that in the Bill and move forward. The Minister might consider some minor amendments to the Bill in that regard. I will conclude by congratulating the Minister and her Department on bringing forward the Bill and the speed with which they have done so.

See this speech in context