Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Bill so as to permit further consideration of important legal and constitutional issues and in particular

(a) the resolution of current litigation regarding the recognition of a foreign same sex marriage;

(b) finalisation by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution of its examination of Articles 40.3, 41 and 42, relating to the family;

(c) publication of the Report of the Law Reform Commission on the Rights and Duties of Cohabitees."

I compliment Senator Norris on introducing this Bill. It is fair to say that he has been one of the most ardent supporters of the marginalised in this House over the years. I do not refer only to those he represents tonight but also to those with disabilities. The latter issue is very dear to my heart. Such people are extremely lucky to have Senator Norris on their side. While I do not agree with the Senator this evening, I commend him on his efforts.

The family based on marriage has been the overwhelming norm in this country since the foundation of the State. That typical domestic situation has changed as social trends have developed. I do not doubt that the concept of marriage is under stress. Marriage breakdown is increasing. Poverty among children who are being raised by a sole parent is part and parcel of modern society. We know that children are being raised in one-parent families. Social ills have resulted from that and the poverty associated with it. All Senators encounter examples of that on a daily basis. I do not suggest that children from one-parent families are solely responsible for such ills but the phenomenon to which I refer is certainly a contributory factor.

Senator Norris spoke of the difficulties experienced at a human level by couples whose relationships do not conform with the norm, as outlined in the Constitution. The Senator spoke of the problems that would be experienced by a couple living together if one of them were to get sick and have to go to hospital. If the patient's partner went to the nurses' desk to inquire about the partner's condition, which may be serious, they might be told they do not have the right to be given such information because they are not a next-of-kin. Such a situation would be difficult, frustrating and dreadful. We should examine such difficulties in one context or another.

Section 6 of the Bill is its core. It proposes that "parties to a civil partnership shall be regarded in law as having the same rights and entitlements as parties to a marriage valid in law under the Family Law Act 1995 and Civil Registration Act 2004". The Senator proposes that "a civil partnership" should be defined as "a conjugal relationship". In other words, those who are involved in a civil partnership will be considered to be those who are engaged in a sexual relationship. It is particularly important to emphasise that so that one does not think the Bill will benefit other people living together, such as siblings or other members of families, who are not involved in a sexual relationship with each other. The Bill will not alter the social welfare or taxation rights of such people, whose circumstances need to be examined in a Bill of this nature.

On a superficial reading, the Bill appears to correct what some people perceive to be a form of social inequity. That aspect of the issue needs to be the subject of a great deal more consideration before we can form a judgment on it that we are happy to stand over. As outlined in the amendment to the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill, the All-Party Committee on the Constitution is examining Articles 40.3, 41 and 42 of the Constitution, which refer to the family. The committee sought many contributions and there have been many submissions. Questions posed at the committee concerned whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, how the family should be defined, whether it is possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage, and the rights that should be protected in respect of the natural father, the natural mother and the child. The committee is the appropriate forum in which to tease out all these issues because it allows for the consideration not only of the opinions of Members of the Oireachtas but also those of the public. It will provide the basis on which we will make our ultimate judgment call. The more experts with whom we engage and the more we involve the public, the better that judgment call will be. Therefore, it would be unwise for us to proceed with the Bill.

The amendment alludes to the case of Zappone and Gilligan, which is currently before the courts. The outcome of that case will enlighten us and we would be unwise to form an opinion until all the facts are known.

The Bill probably poses a direct challenge to the definition of the family contained in Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution which provides that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack". I believe Senator Norris's Bill may be in contravention of the Constitution but I am sure the Minister will tell us, more than adequately, whether this is the case.

A body of law in this area makes it clear that superior rights cannot be guaranteed to those in liaisons that do not fulfil the criteria under the Family Law Act 1995. If we disregard this, we are disregarding the fundamental principles of the Constitution.