Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the speed with which they are moving the Bill forward and the fact the voice of the people in so far as it related to facilitating same-sex marriage is being heeded and enacted. The Minister said it is only what is required to introduce same-sex marriage. Is it necessary to remove the institution of civil partnership? The Minister said there has not been a public consultation on the matter since 2006. Why are we removing this institution without a public consultation? The people voted in favour of equality, not to confine family relations that enjoy legal protection to marriage alone.

The Minister mentioned the downgrading of the protections of civil partnership to make it constitutional. Nowhere in my amendments have I suggested downgrading the protections. I would not propose it and would find such a suggestion hard to accept. There would be rights that would be enjoyed by non-conjugal couples, not accidentally by two mates who happen to live together but by two people who voluntarily and knowingly entered into a civil partnership. One would not accidentally find oneself subject to a maintenance order in respect of a friend with whom one had lived during college and for a few months afterwards. This is not what is proposed. It would be for people who voluntarily enter into a civil partnership.

The Minister justified the six-month issue as an orderly discontinuance or an orderly wind-down. While I do not accept that recognising civil partnerships from abroad is an attack, if it is, an orderly wind-down of an attack is still an attack for six months. There is a lack of logic in the Bill in this regard. Either we can recognise civil partnerships, which we can and should, or we cannot. If we cannot, to do so for six months is unconstitutional. I thank the Minister for responding to the points I raised.

See this speech in context