Joe O'Toole (Independent)

This debate is a landmark in the discussion on this issue. The positive input by the Minister to this motion, proposed and seconded by my colleagues, marks an important move forward. I ask the Minister and his Department officials to examine this in a challenging and open way, along the lines proposed by Senator Hayes. This is not a party issue. There is no political or party gain to be made from it. We need to examine how we can move forward. Senator Norris has made major progress in drawing up a Bill on this matter. The Department should be open to helping and supporting him in developing it and, if necessary, taking it over at some stage. I formally put it to the Minister to take that approach and I hope he will do so.

In the maturation and development of society, there are clear signs along the way. Societies have always developed, irrespective of the ideas of different philosophers, with levels of antipathy between different groups. People of different views, culture, colour or who support different football teams start from a base of antipathy towards each other. As society develops, people move to at some stage recognising their similarities and differences but not accepting difference, and then later to acceptance of difference. People move to a stage where there is a tolerance of difference, of which we on this island have observed a great deal. One of the problems society creates for itself in terms of its objective of achieving a developed society is that tolerance is often given far too high a level of credibility because it is taking a step beyond tolerance that will effectively be the criterion on which society is judged, namely, the positive movement towards people of difference. In the creation, development and building of a multifaceted society, diversity and difference is cherished and perceived to be an enriching quality and people seek not only to create the space for difference but work towards creating what would be described in other discussions as an intercultural society, an objective that can also be ascribed to this debate. This issue is about interculture and interplay between people of different backgrounds and beliefs, people in different groups who support different models. That is what defines a society.

An issue that was recognised tonight is that concepts of love, commitment, sharing, support and longevity are not only to be found in the family model. As Senator Maurice Hayes said, often there can be situations in the marriage model which are less than positive, good, or supportive for the development of children and family life, and that is well recognised. We are dealing with recognising how we as a society can move forward, which is what we should do.

The tone of the debate has been non-threatening, which is great. The archbishops should not have to be concerned about this matter. There should be no attempt to undermine the value and position of the family in the Constitution or in society. We should simply consider giving recognition to what exists.

I do not know if we really understand the difficulties experienced by people who are different. I have many friends of long standing and people close to me who are gay. I do not believe Senator Norris will object to me stating that I shared an office with him for the first five years I served in the House. I saw some of the post he received and the negativity, abuse and horrible comments to which he was subjected. The Senator knows my views quite well and is aware that since then I have always advised gay people that they should not feel any need to come out or declare themselves to be gay. These people have enough trouble in their lives without adding more.

I was involved in a discussion recently with some friends of mine who are positive, supportive and open. We were talking about mutual friends who were present and one asked why they would not just tell us that they are gay. That is the point where difficulties arise. Nobody should ever feel the need to make a declaration of their sexuality. It should never be necessary to do so. No more than someone should have to say he or she is heterosexual, neither should a person have to declare he or she is homosexual. There should simply be supports in place for these people in our society. We should give careful consideration to that matter. Many gay relationships are more loving, stable, long-term and loyal than the traditional family models. That is no reflection on anybody; it is just worth knowing.

There are two groups in society about which I am always concerned. The first comprises the ageing parents of Down's syndrome children who worry about what will happen to their children when they die. The other group is comprised of partners in gay relationship who are the main earners and who wonder what will happen to their loved ones when they die. I am aware of funerals where gay partners were not even recognised by the families at the service. None of that is necessary. It is not about us trying to decide how matters should develop. It is about us being open and tolerant, without threatening anyone's beliefs, undermining anybody's faith or giving any offence to the Constitution. We must work along the lines outlined by the Minister. Much of what he said has been supported by the comments made by other speakers.

Is it not possible to recognise that this is an issue for everyone and move forward? There are many examples of problems arising because someone decided to take a particular party line. I cannot conceive of any party line that might be taken in respect of this matter. In moving it forward we need to recognise the kind of supports people need. Where people have given their lives to each other — regardless of whether they happen to be unmarried or involved in a same sex relationship — we must recognise that they have given a commitment and have an entitlement. We must, therefore, deal with many matters such as pensions, property and wills. The Minister outlined the various items of common law that are evolving. This is a complex and complicated area and we need to address it.

This debate has been a hugely important step forward and has also been completely non-confrontational. I am delighted that the Minister indicated that it is possible that we may reach an agreement on the motion. I compliment Senator Henry on tabling the motion and appeal to the Department to discuss with Senator Norris the content of the Bill to which he referred so that this issue can be moved forward in an all-party fashion.