Don Lydon (Fianna Fail)

This debate revolves around the family. A family is a primary social group consisting of a man and a woman living together in a long-term commitment formalised by marriage. The primary definition is usually extended to include children and then on to any group of people related by blood, heterosexual marriage or adoption. Even from a strictly evolutionary point of view, nature itself knows of only one kind of human family, namely, biological pair bonding. This fundamental definition has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which holds that the constitutional meaning of "family" is confined to a family based on marriage.

Many scholars who have considered this issue have arrived at the same broad understating of family being a unit, cemented by marriage. The attempt to redefine the family to include various alternative lifestyles ignores the historical and sociological evidence. The natural family remains an historical and social reality, which cannot simply be altered by legislative fiat or by the adoption of current mores.

It is important to recognise that people in non-traditional household units have certain legitimate rights, which justice demands we recognise. The challenge is to do this without undermining the respect and protection for the family based on marriage, which is properly provided for in the Constitution. The key is to ensure that rights accorded to persons in non-traditional household units are not granted based on the existence of a recognised sexual relationship. Rather such rights should be based upon the fact that two or more persons form the economic and social unit of a household. Where two or more persons have formed such a household for a period of, let us say, five years, they could be granted certain tax advantages and other rights without prejudice to the special status of the family based on marriage.

The question of inheritance tax is easily and uncontroversially resolved by granting the principle that every person should be allowed to have one privileged heir who can inherit the bulk of an estate without being subject to ruinous levels of inheritance tax. In the case of a married person, his or her spouse, ipso facto, becomes that privileged heir. Other persons could be allowed to nominate a privileged heir, possibly even a corporate person such as a registered charity.

The relationship of marriage deserves special protection as it forms the basis for stable families with a minimal level of dependence on the State. Many significant advantages accrue to society from the existence of such stable units. By its nature as a procreative relationship, marriage is based upon the existence of an assumed natural sexual relationship between the spouses and the law requires consummation for validity. This is where the recognition of the institution of marriage and the legal rights accorded to the family based on marriage must be unique if they are to have any meaning.

I come to the matter of homosexual or gay marriages. The definitions of marriage in all societies refer variously to marriage as a contract between a man and a woman to live together as husband and wife. Marriage is an institution older than the State and the institution of positive law, an institution that has been assumed into the sphere of the State's concern for good reasons. There is a rationale for the existence of civil marriage, as such. This rationale is based on the fact that marriage is an institution which is fundamental to society and which it is in society's interest to protect and nurture. This very rationale, which justifies the intrusion of the organs of the State into marriage, would be undermined by the introduction of homosexual unions analogous to marriage.

It is important to recognise that the refusal of the State to countenance marriage or civil unions between persons of the same sex does not mean that other legitimate rights of such persons cannot be granted or protected by law, as they should be. However, such rights are based on their citizenship rather than on their relationship, which it is inappropriate for the State to recognise in any way other than that they form an economic household unit.

I am disappointed in the time allowed for this debate. Having listened to Senator Norris I was particularly disappointed that he was given so little time. He could have talked for an hour on the Bill and should have been given at least half an hour. I hope he will talk further on the Bill when the debate resumes.