Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Marriage between a man and woman is an institution fundamental to the propagation of the human race. It is also fundamental to the care, nurture and rearing of children to become good and valuable citizens of the future. That is best achieved through children being raised by their biological parents, father and mother in a loving, stable, married relationship. I am not saying that there are not many children who are well reared in other family units but the family unit of mother, father and children is the ideal for society. As such, it deserves unique recognition and support by the State.

It will be obvious that I do not support marriage for same sex couples. That is not to say that certain entitlements should not be granted to gay couples who share their lives but they should not simply replicate each and every marriage entitlement. Instead, there should be a focused and specific targeting of matters that impinge on gay couples, recognition of rights of next of kin, entitlement to nominate successors to pensions, domestic violence provisions, which have already been extended, and certain social welfare supports. The amendments made to property succession rights some years ago should also apply to those living together in a gay relationship.

We do not know what entitlements will be prescribed in the civil partnership Bill. If married allowances and inheritance tax provisions available to married couples are extended to civil partnerships for gay couples we are moving in the direction of conferring practically all marriage entitlements on gay couples. That is marriage by another name.

A recent survey in the United States showed that married women spend an average of 11 years out of the workforce, in most cases rearing their children. That is 25% of a woman's working life which has obvious financial consequences for them and their families. It is therefore understandable that if we fully support marriage, tax benefits apply. If all the marital entitlements are transferred to gay marriage then civil partnership is analogous to marriage between a man and a woman, which may be seen as disingenuous or as a ruse to overcome the constitutional impediment to such marriage.

It disenfranchises the public from adjudicating on the issue and marriage is covered in, and protected by, the Constitution. More importantly, it would abrogate Members' responsibility to uphold the Constitution. It would be seen as circumventing it and this would be a highly retrograde step to take. If this right is pursued, I suggest the question should be put to the people by way of referendum.

I refer to the intrusion of the European Union into such matters. These are matters of social importance that often are reflected in the culture and ethos of each member state. There have been two recent developments to which I would not subscribe or support. Civil partnership has been introduced in Germany and in recent weeks, an EU Commissioner has written to Germany stating the model it has adopted does not go far enough for gays and that it must be equal to marriage. The Christian Democratic Union is fighting back on this issue. Moreover, a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights found in favour of a French couple in the area of adoption and overturned a number of French court decisions in that regard.

I do not believe the State can adopt a position of indifference on the rights of the child. Despite people's assertions, there are well-established and recognised reports that show the best prospect for children, their protection and development, is to be reared by their biological mothers and fathers. This is the ideal and should be supported by Members. One cannot have a position of indifference on the right of a child to be raised by his or her mother and father. The State cannot be neutral if biological parenting is being downgraded. As for the rights of the individual, I recognise there are certain issues which must be addressed in the interests of enhancing the lives who commit to each other in a gay relationship. However, there are balancing rights in respect of the overall well-being of society and fundamental to that well-being, I propose that the family unit is a key component and cornerstone that must be protected at all costs.