David Norris (Independent)

Declan Costello pointed out in 1967 that the Constitution is an organic and developing document. The United Nations defines "family" in a variety of ways that are not confined to this group. With regard to the Constitution, the Law Reform Commission sought and obtained opinion to the effect that the only way constitutionality could be challenged would be through legislation which purported to give greater rights to the new institution than to marriage. I am aware the Attorney General gave a different view but Attorneys General by their very nature have to be cautious in their advice. It would be easy to address this situation and I invite the Minister to do so. A simple tweak to the Civil Registration Act would introduce civil marriage.

The tenth report of the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution was splendid. The Colley report recommended civil marriage as the best option because it advised that the status of gay people would otherwise be further eroded. The report of the former North Eastern Health Board showed the significant damage done to health and well-being by the lack of status for gay people, including increases in suicides and psychiatric illnesses. The report stated these effects did not come from their sexuality but from the kind of attitudes expressed in opposing the measures we are discussing today.

A lot of nonsense is spoken about the history of marriage as if it was a permanent institution, unlike the Constitution which is organic and developing. It was not until 1754 that marriage was regulated in this country. Until then, marriage was recognised on the basis of an exchange of vows. By the 1920s, according to Conscience — the News Journal of Catholic Opinion, the definition of marriage in America was narrowed to forbid interracial marriages. During the same period, the drawbacks to not being married increased.

The number of cohabiting couples in the 2006 census was 121,000, or double the number of four years earlier. This figure included more than 2,000 gay couples but that is a serious underestimate because gay people tend not to report this arrangement.

I emphasise that I am not seeking religious marriage. This is strictly a civil marriage issue. However, the work of an internationally renowned historian and social commentator, the late Professor John Boswell, reveals that the early Christian church enacted rituals for the blessing of same sex unions. That has been neatly obliterated from the history of western Christianity.

In regard to the attitudes of Irish people, at least 41% are strongly in favour and a survey carried in the Irish Examiner of 21 February 2006 revealed that 51% of the population favoured gay marriage or unions.

Same sex marriage was introduced in the Netherlands under that country's marriage act of 2001, while in Belgium it was introduced in 2003. Same sex marriage became legal in Canada on 20 July 2005. That is interesting to Ireland because of the Zappone and Gilligan case. In holy Catholic Spain, same sex marriage was introduced on 3 July 2005. The High Court of Israel issued a ruling recognising same sex marriage on the basis of an action taken by people who had been married in Canada. That is an interesting precedent for this country. In the United States of America, Massachusetts has allowed full marriage equality since 18 November 2003. One of the original sponsors of an amendment to ban gay marriage and legalised civil unions, Brian Lees, stated, "gay marriage has begun and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth". It is therefore not the disaster people pretended it would be. In Northern Ireland, civil partnership is allowed with ceremonies performed by marriage registrars. As I noted earlier, there is more freedom for people like me in Paisley's Belfast then in Bertie's Dublin. That is a significant reproach.

People suffer from a range of disadvantages at present, including in the area of immigration. People who in previous years had to leave this country formed relationships abroad, some of which were recognised, and they have now returned. The last time I discussed this issue, I brought into the House five folders containing these agonising stories. My secretary had to help me carry them. At the conclusion of this debate I will put the human face on this material.

A letter from a psychiatrist to yesterday's The Irish Times suggested some kind of negative impact on children. The American Academy of Pedriatics states there is no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspect of psychological, social or sexual development to children in heterosexual families. The American Psychological Association states:

. . . there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents . . . Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Studies by the Australian Psychological Society comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents found no developmental difference between the groups. The Canadian Psychological Association states:

There is a popular misconception that gay and lesbian parents, because of their sexual orientation, compromise the psychological and sexual development of their children . . . Psychosocial research into lesbian and gay parenting indicates that there is no basis in the scientific literature for this perception.

I will list other organisations and return to them in my concluding speech: The Royal College of Psychiatrists; the National Association of Social Workers; and the American Psychiatric Association. That should put that canard to rest, notwithstanding the discrimination that exists against gay people.