John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

The Employment Equality Act 1998 prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined in this Bill as meaning heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The ground-breaking Equal Status Act 2000, which was also initiated by this Government, protects against discrimination outside the field of employment by prohibiting discrimination in the supply of goods and services on nine distinct grounds including sexual orientation.

It is to be regretted that the debate has diminished to the level of name-calling. It amuses me that people sometimes think that a person who takes another view does not understand the issues. I reject that and contend that we are quite clear on the issues. Marriage is an institution honoured in most societies because it benefits the State and civil society. Through the procreation of children, it provides for the future of the State. When children mature and go to work, they pay for the pensions and social welfare benefits of the present generation. Marriage is, therefore, an important institution which should be strengthened and promoted by the State. All serious studies indicate that a family in which the parents are married is the best milieu for the rearing of children.

The question I pose in regard to this Bill is probably the same as that which went through the mind of the child observing the emperor whose tailor had allegedly provided him with a beautiful suit. There was much admiration of this suit until the child pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. If this Bill applies to civil partnership every de jure and de facto meaning of civil marriage, the question arises as to why heterosexual couples should not just choose civil marriage. This issue arose during the debate in the UK and it is a question that should be addressed.

The Bill confines civil registration to conjugal relationships, which the dictionary defines as pertaining to marriage or the right of a sexual relationship. Like marriage, it also has a schedule of forbidden degrees of kindred and provides for dissolution and annulment. The message of registration and the entire proposal imitates civil marriage. Section 6 bestows on a civil partnership the same rights of marriage now enjoyed by legally married couples. Presumably, this includes taxation benefits and the right to adopt children. Apart from seeking privileges for same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual couples who by the Bill's definition would have to be free to marry, the Bill excludes others living together such as a widowed mother and son or two siblings, for example.

I agree with the Minister that the Bill will prove to be unconstitutional. The proposal for civil registration as envisaged in this Bill effectively amounts to a consideration of the question of homosexual marriage. This is a question that was recently rejected in all 11 states in the United States in which it was tested, despite the influence of the liberal media. We should not accept the Bill as it stands and I second the proposed amendment.