Seanad debates

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

Civil Marriage: Motion

 

4:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, acting upon the principles enunciated on behalf of the then Fíanna Fail/Labour Coalition Government in 1993 during the debate surrounding the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, in which the then Minister for Justice indicated that clear factual and cogent arguments rather than prejudice would be required to support discrimination in law against any Irish citizen, and in the light of the reports of various think tanks and Commissions but most particularly the Colley Report, urges the Government at last to introduce full equality under the law for gay citizens of Ireland including access to civil marriage.

I welcome the Minister, although I do not welcome his rather flabby amendment. Private Members' time is one of the most important times in our parliamentary calendar. We all take it very seriously, despite the fact due to the lateness of the day, very often it is not covered at all, and we try to raise serious issues. I wanted to raise a number of issues, including cystic fibrosis, which was taken by Senator de Búrca. She received a surprisingly comprehensive reply and I felt it would be wrong to expand on that. I then wanted to raise the questions of extraordinary rendition and the Civil Partnership Bill 2004, which I had tabled. However, I withdrew it on 13 February to show my revulsion at the attitude of the Government parties and the fact that they had so clearly dragged their heels on this important issue. My Bill was before the House for approximately four years and nothing was done. Had the Government acted at the time it would have been generous. There might have been a streak of the prophetic and the visionary but all that has drained away. We are getting reform by dribs and dribs in a mean spirited, mean minded, legalistic, cheese paring way and it is not good enough. I will not tolerate the stuff we got from former Senator Mansergh in the past, attempting to dilute recognition of gay people's relationships to remove from them any sense of celebration, public endorsement and respect. I will not take that any more and I will not be a second class citizen in this country in a manner which I am clearly defined. I will not accept such dilution.

The motion was tabled with great seriousness in light of the principles enunciated by Maire Geoghegan-Quinn in 1993 when, in a marvellous moment, she said clearly that, as a Minister, she would require clear, cogent and practical reasons to discriminate against an Irish citizen and in light of the Taoiseach's statement in 2006 that:

Our sexual orientation is not an incidental attribute. It is an essential part of who and what we are. All citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, stand equal in the eyes of the law. Sexual orientation cannot and must not be the basis of a second class citizenship. Our laws have changed and will continue to change to reflect this principle.

Would that his words were true but they were not and we are not equal. We are being given, at best, second-class citizenship. Those who oppose this say they are defending marriage but they are not. They are, in a mean spirited way, defending what they see as their entitlement to superiority and they are doing it in precisely the same way those arrogant members of the former Protestant ascendancy in this country defended their privilege against Daniel O'Connell who made the effective point that human liberty is not a finite resource that is diminished by being extended to other people but, instead, is enriched, enhanced and increased by being extended.

The Government parties compliment themselves in their amendment on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993. I had something to do with that when I had to drag the Government to Europe to get it. It took four years before anything was done. I recall the then Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, a decent man, being questioned about it and replying it was not a priority. What was held to be a serious violation of fundamental human rights is not a priority when it affects gay people. The amendment refers to the Unfair Dismissals Acts and dismissal being unfair on the ground of sexual orientation. That is my sexual orientation clause, which was also inserted in the Refugee Act 1996. The Government can claim credit only for parachuting in on the work that was done. Astonishingly, reference is made to the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007, and the Equal Status Act 2000. I cannot believe I am reading this. These are the Acts from which gay people in a profession to which many of them are drawn are specifically excluded, despite the overwhelming evidence of the Ferns report. We also know that because of the exemptions sought by and given to the churches, they have the right to dismiss people from their jobs as teachers on the ground of their sexual orientation. For that reason, young people are subjected to homophobic bullying in the area of education. In 80% of bullying cases a homophobic element is involved and in 80% teachers do nothing about it because this Act makes them afraid. It is curious, therefore, to see it in the amendment.

The Health Insurance Act is the first score for the Government and well done on that. The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated, including the issue of incompatibility certificates — Lydia Foy received the first of these the other day — but the Government was required to incorporate it. Well done too on the Parental Leave Act, which represents a small step. The Government amendment then notes that legislation to conform must be fully consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.