Seanad debates

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

4:00 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Labour)

I wish to share time with Senator Prendergast. Perhaps the Acting Chairman will indicate when five minutes have elapsed.

I commend the Independent Senators on tabling this motion and they have done very well to use their Private Members' time to up the ante on this issue. We must move forward with this.

This month marks the one-year anniversary of my party's introduction of the Civil Unions Bill, comprehensive legislation that would have given legal recognition to civil unions for couples. It was backed by Ireland's gay community but was rejected by the Government at the time, just before the most recent general election. On the second time around for the Bill last autumn, the Government decided to reject it, saying it would introduce the heads of a Bill concerning civil partnership.

I heard the Minister state earlier that he expects to bring in the heads of a Bill in a matter of weeks. My concern is that we will never actually see a real Bill from the Government. Although we might see the heads of what a Bill might look like, an actual Bill will not see the light of day and there will be an outline with no consequence. The reason for this is the Government is pandering to the mean-minded conservatives within its constituent parties, although they are probably a minority. As a result, it is not allowing a Bill to be brought forward. Consequently, we will not accept the Government's amendment.

We believe the Government is trying to appease some members of the conservative wing and appeal to some of the more progressive people in the Government, such as some of those in the Acting Chairman's party. They say they have taken note of the options presented in the Colley report, the Oireachtas Commission on the Constitution, and the Law Reform Commission and are keen to point out how good they have been in moving other forms of legislation such as employment law. The Employment Equality Act 1998 is intended to protect the gay community against discrimination in areas such as employment, vocational training and the provision of goods. Section 37, however, allows discrimination to exist by permitting medical, educational and religious institutions to refuse to hire gay people on the grounds of their sexuality. That is not what equality means to me.

The Government's amendment to the motion, stating that it wants to introduce heads of a Bill makes me worry that we will never see one. This is no longer a reasonable, acceptable or sufficient approach to the issue. Dr. Martin Luther King said that the freedom of the American white community was linked to that of the black community. The lack of equality in civil unions here demeans all the citizens of the nation.

Two members of a group founded a few weeks ago, MarriageEquality, published an article in The Irish Times this week about their experience of bringing up their son. They wrote that civil marriage "would mean that we would be recognised as a family unit, no ands, ifs or buts. We are not looking for a church marriage or blessing. We are not challenging individual church beliefs and understandings on marriage in any way. We are simply looking to be treated fairly in law for our son". They focus on a loving family, no matter what form it takes. This family needs to be protected.

The Government cannot cast the State's youngest citizens aside and treat their parents as second class citizens. Children should not have to suffer at the hands of a weak-willed Government which is pandering to a hard core conservative minority within its own ranks, rather than protecting citizens. I commend the motion as proposed by Senator Norris and the Independent Senators and encourage the House to support it and vote down the Government and Fine Gael amendments.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.