Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Clearly, there are provisions in this amendment that represent a step forward on the current position. There is a move away from the very rigid view of what constitutes a family that is embedded in the 1937 Constitution and that very directly reflects Catholic Church teaching, and that is the way it should be. It allows for the potential – only the potential but potential nonetheless – for a Government to extend rights to all family forms in our society, be the family members married or not. In its own way, it is a reflection, albeit a very pale one, of the social changes and movements we have seen in this State in recent years, including the feminist movement and the appeal changes.

I read in the papers in recent days that there was concern in Government quarters as to whether this legislation would be passed. The timid character of the Government's amendments increases the likelihood or possibility that it will not be. There are many people who want to see a bolder change and who would be more likely to be inspired to vote if there were bolder changes, including changes along the lines of the amendment we are debating.

The Constitution currently states that the State is to guard with special care the institution of marriage and protect it against attack. Marriage is made the gold standard but one arrangement cannot be elevated without pushing other arrangements down. That provision allows the State to discriminate and it could be argued, and this is reflected in a number of court judgments, one of whom I am thinking in particular of, that it obliges the State to discriminate. We have a situation in the State where an unmarried couple will not have the same pension entitlements as widows and widowers, cohabiting couples will not qualify for a variety of tax benefits and many pension schemes discriminate against non-married couples, and have a legal right to do so.

Are these going to be changed on the basis of the Government's proposed amendment? Would there not be a far greater chance of the amendment being passed and change being achieved if the Government was to widen and put a bolder amendment in front of the people? I would like to support amendments for change regarding Article 39 of the Constitution but I, and I think many other people, want a far bolder approach to this issue rather than the timid approach the Government is adopting on this. I will supporting this amendment.

See this speech in context