Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Constitution currently recognises only the marital family as the family. This referendum is intended to recognise and give constitutional status and protection to families beyond the marital family, including cohabiting couples and one-parent families. The special and unique status of marriage in the Constitution will not be altered by this. In order to do this, the Government proposes to amend Article 41.1.1° to insert the words "whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships". The approach will also require the deletion of the words "on which the Family is founded" from Article 41.3.1° to remove the link between the family and marriage in that provision.

When it comes to family, the Ireland of today is very different, when it comes to attitudes, from what it was when the Constitution was ratified by the people in 1937. We have already seen changes to the Constitution on related matters. The divorce referendum in 1996 provided a constitutional acknowledgement that married people may legally divorce and thus enter new family situations. The definition of the family in Article 41 was not amended to reflect this change and the inevitable changes to family structures. Many of the new forms of family have become commonplace to an extent which probably could not have been imagined at the time when the original Constitution was drafted. For example, if someone used the term "blended family" in 1937, it would have caused a lot of confusion. Now, such family types are quite common. We also have the relatively new provision which allows people of the same sex to marry and has created more new types of family situations, which is quite different from what would have been envisaged in 1930s Ireland, when homosexuality was still illegal.

The most common alternative to family type other than the marital family is the one-parent family. I am a member of such a family. Information from the 2016 census showed that the number of one-parent families stood at 218,817, of which 189,112 were mothers and 29,705 were fathers. The majority, 125,840, had just one child. The statistics also show that the most common reason for single fatherhood was widowhood, whereas only one in five of the single mothers was widowed. We heard earlier from Deputy Bacik that the actual issue this leaves for a father who is widowed is that he is not entitled to the widow's pension if he is not married, and, similarly, nor is a mother.

Skipping forward to 2022, we see the census figures show there was a marginal decrease in the number of one-parent families with mothers with children, which is down by 1%, compared with a rise recorded among one-parent families with fathers with children, which is up by 13%. That means a large number of children are being brought up in situations where they see far more of one parent over another or may indeed not see the other parent at all. We also see in the census figures of 2022 that there has been a significant increase in the number of families defined as a couple without children or a one-parent unit with one or more children, but a continued reduction in the number of children per family. It is important that those single parents and their children are recognised as a family by the Constitution. The removal of the link in the Constitution between the family and marriage also recognises that people can have a strong, happy and supportive family without the involvement of marriage. Many couples are now choosing simply not to marry for a variety of reasons but are perfectly loving parents.

There is one area of possible concern that I want to highlight. The proposed amendment to the Constitution includes the words "durable relationships". Marriage is a legal contract that is clearly defined and easy to understand. Therefore, we refer to marriage in the Constitution and it is legally clear what is being referred to. However, the phrase "durable relationships" is open to interpretation, whomever you discuss it with. Is it a good idea to insert a clause in the Constitution which contains a very subjective term? I just spoke to someone on the phone before I came into the debate. His exact words were that he thought he was in a durable relationship until it went wrong. In that case, if people were married, they would most likely get divorced, but if they are in a durable relationship and they are not married, do we know what the consequences are? I would be concerned on that basis that the wording of this as it stands is not wording that I would be able to support, because I feel we would probably cause legal wrangles all over the place.

If the Minister is going to propose a definition of what is meant by "durable relationship", it has to be done of certainty. Whatever about being able to argue legally in courts and so on, this is our Constitution. It requires certainty and definitiveness. The words "durable relationship" can mean many things to many people. I ask the Minister to reconsider the use of those words. I do not think what constitutes such a relationship can be defined. I called a number of people to ask them and they all had different interpretations. As I said, this is the Constitution. We need definitiveness.

See this speech in context