Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome this opportunity to second the important motion proposed by my colleague, Senator Norris, with his customary eloquence. I pay tribute to the work he has done in bringing about much of the legal change to which the Government amendment refers.

Before addressing the substance of the motion, I declare a professional interest in the matter. In my capacity as a practising barrister I represent the plaintiffs in the case currently before the courts seeking legal recognition for a marriage contracted in Canada and a declaration of the plaintiffs' right to marry in Ireland. The case has been heard in the High Court and an appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. I am, therefore, ethically restricted as to what I can say directly related to the case.

I am here to support the principle of equality before the law for same sex couples and in particular to support the principle that same sex couples, like opposite sex couples, have the right to marry. Not only is this clear from the growing number of jurisdictions that provide legal recognition for same sex marriages, notably Spain, but a consensus has also emerged in Ireland on the need for some form of legal recognition for same sex couples. This is evidenced by the November 2006 report of the Colley group, the tenth report of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution, the report of the Law Reform Commission on cohabitees and in the Government legislative programme in which a commitment is given to prepare a scheme of a civil partnership Bill. A consensus has emerged on the need to provide recognition for same-sex relationships in law.

The Labour Party introduced a Private Members' Bill in December 2006 — the Civil Unions Bill — which was reintroduced in the Dáil by Deputy Howlin in October-November of last year. The Government made a shameful U-turn in its response to the Labour Party Bill and gave a tokenistic reiteration of the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to legislate for civil partnership at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government. This is the same formula of words used in the amendment to this motion.

Some of the comments made by Government party Deputies in November-December last betrayed a deep resistance to the principle of equality and parity of esteem for same-sex couples. The comments of some Deputies might have been unsurprising but it was particularly disappointing to hear the Minister say that the Labour Party Bill risked impugning the constitutionally protected family.

The attitude change of Green Party Deputies was also particularly disappointing. From being a party which apparently had supported the principle of gay marriage, it had retreated behind a vague Government commitment to bring forward the heads of a Bill by the end of March of this year. In fact, neither the Government amendment to this motion nor the Fine Gael amendment refer to March or to any deadline for the introduction of heads of a Bill or, indeed, of legislation. In other words, the commitment to the introduction of civil partnership legislation expressed in the amendments is an empty one which does nothing to advance the principle of recognition for gay and lesbian couples let alone the principle of equality.

This is especially disappointing given the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to parity of protection of human rights North and South of the Border and the fact gay couples from Belfast to Bangor to Derry can enter civil unions in a society which is, in many ways, more socially conservative than our own.

The only conclusion one can draw from the Government approach to this issue is that it is hoping it will simply go away. However, we can tell them — Senator Norris has already made it clear — that it will not go away and that the consequences of continued non-recognition for thousands of men, women and especially children of same sex couples are too serious for this simply to disappear from the political agenda.

A good deal has been said about the rights of children in this debate, particularly by those who oppose the principle of recognition for same-sex couples. None of them has addressed the central truth that there are already many children in Ireland being raised by same sex parents and whose rights are unprotected in our law. Many of those children have spoken out in recent days in the newspapers and on radio and television and none of the opponents of recognition has been able to give solid reasons that the recognition of marriage would encroach in any way on the rights of the children of gay relationships.

As Senator Norris said, all the available unbiased, scientific and peer-reviewed research shows that children brought up by same sex parents do as well as those brought by opposite sex parents. Indeed, all parents, male or female or gay or straight can relate to their children in ways which might be described as masculine or feminine. What matters is not the sexuality or gender of the parents but rather the quality of the parenting and the relationship the parents have with the children. We all know this in reality both as parents and as children of parents.

Apart from the issues of children, child custody and adoption, gay people are currently discriminated against in a range of ways as couples, including taxation, social welfare, succession rights, next-of-kin rights, immigration matters and so on, as illustrated in research and reports produced by GLEN, the Equality Authority and others. This is by virtue of the lack of recognition for intimate and committed relationships. It is important to state that a loving relationship between two persons, whether of different sexes or the same sex, is not the same as, or comparable with, the relationship between two siblings or two flatmates and yet those on the other side of the debate have frequently made that comparison.

The group, MarriagEquality, which launched last week has made clear it seeks recognition in the law for civil marriage. It is looking for equality in law and I support its aims which are reflected in the wording of this important motion but which can be summarised in one word, that is, "equality". Even if a specific time commitment were given by the Government for the introduction of legislation allowing for civil partnership, it is not the same as marriage and does not amount to equality in law for gay people. In the spirit of equality, I urge other Members of this House to support this motion and reject the amendments.