Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

My party did not make a submission to the committee on this issue because it feared that what has transpired today would come to pass. The Government has deliberately blurred the lines of debate on this issue and claimed that civil partnership is an issue pertaining to Bunreacht na hÉireann. That is not the case. Legislation, if framed correctly and amended as necessary, should be such that the question of civil partnership would not impinge on the Constitution. While the Bill will not progress to Committee Stage at this time, I hope sincerely that it will do so soon.

For far too long, citizens of this State who have had all the responsibilities of citizenship placed on them, have been denied full rights. Despite what some would say about the institution of marriage being denigrated and coming under attack, it is a simple fact that every measure in this State's family law revolves around marriage, including the issues of tax, social welfare, pensions and ownership. Many rights and entitlements depend on the presence of a marriage certificate in order to be granted in full. This excludes huge numbers of people who are not allowed to marry by virtue of their sexuality or who choose not to marry because of their life choices, which can be shaped by everything from personal circumstances to religious beliefs.

I will not go into further detail on the Bill because Senator Norris has done so and will be doing so again tomorrow. My party and most, if not all, other parties would agree with the broad thrust of the Bill. However, there are two points I would like to make on specific sections, the first of which concerns the dissolution of partnerships. In this regard, section 7(4) states: "The prescribed period for the purpose of subsection (2) [of section 7] is six weeks from the making of the conditional order". I understand the reason for this six-week rule was the fact that the Bill is based on contract law and that such a period is the norm in those terms. I am disappointed by this. What hope have we of achieving equality if these relationships can be disposed of within six weeks, albeit on the same terms as a marriage, when a married couple must wait four years? It runs contrary to the call for greater equality to award the rights but not responsibilities of marriage. While the four year stipulation for divorce was inserted into the Constitution to convince a wary electorate in the divorce referendum, it will do the cause of equality no good to introduce a type of "divorce lite" into the civil partnership debate.

Last July, Fine Gael became the first major political party in the State to produce a comprehensive civil partnership policy document. We believe it is necessary to ensure that it would be difficult to dissolve such a partnership in order to preserve its integrity. Should the Bill reach Committee Stage, Fine Gael will propose an amendment along these lines.

Section 6 is the critical section on adoption. It states:

The 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 the Civil Registration Act 2004.

The reasoning behind this section is clear. Due, however, to the somewhat pioneering nature of this legislation, any consideration of whether this section consists of an "attack on marriage" as prohibited by the Constitution is shrouded in doubt. Constitutional interpretation of the Bill is an art and not a science. The legal advice Fine Gael received, notwithstanding the thoughts of the Law Reform Commission on this issue, was that to grant adoption rights to the parties of a civil partnership would run foul of Article 41.3. 1°.

As a public representative, committed to the passing of legislation in this area, the last thing I and my party want is to plunge this country into a divisive referendum. This would either confirm the status quo or prompt organisations such as Youth Defence and their supporters to scream about "gay adoption" and allow a moral panic to envelop this worthy debate.

It is important that the fight for equality is not hijacked to the detriment of the entire agenda. The House is in tune with public opinion in discussing, and I hope awarding, partnership rights but it has some way to go before rights of adoption are widened.

Parenthood is an issue for gays and lesbians. Throughout the country, gay men and women are raising children. These children may come from previous, heterosexual relationships. These people may be guardians and gay couples are allowed to foster children — the sky has not fallen in as a result. The right to adopt children necessitates a proper public debate first but the debate is in its infancy. Besides, adoption is a remote possibility given the numbers of children put up for adoption each year in this country. I appeal to the opponents of the Bill and of any move in this area to temper their language when speaking on this aspect of gay rights, even if they cannot do so on other aspects of the Bill.

When my party published its document on civil partnership it received a handful of telephone calls in protest. Most people supported the partnership policy, as did the media, with the exception of one journalist. I urge people to acknowledge the work Senator Norris has done and the serious attitude he is adopting on this topic. Then we will treat the issue sensibly and with speed. For too long people have lived on the margins and we must address those issues. I hope we will do so soon and I look forward to a Committee Stage debate at an early date.