Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I understand that Senator O'Toole, who is not present, may wish to share time. If he appears, I will happily conclude. If this is the case, perhaps the Leas-Chathaoirleach will inform me when I am halfway through.

I wish to preface my remarks by stating this is an issue of tremendous importance and enormous sensitivity and there are deeply-held feelings on all sides on this issue. It goes to the heart of the self-identity of many people who are proponents of same sex partnerships, gay marriage or whatever term of description one cares to use. Equally, people on the other side of the argument have sincere and legitimate concerns about the importance of family life and how the common good is to be served. In this respect I welcome the quotation of the comment by the former Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, to the effect that there must be clear, factual and cogent arguments.

This is what I seek to present and much as I esteem my colleague, Senator Norris, I wish to express my disquiet at the characterisation of arguments against same sex marriage, let alone civil unions, as being somehow nasty. My colleague, Senator Hannigan, spoke of mean-minded conservatives. Others have invoked the Church as though to suggest the only arguments one might make against civil partnerships or same sex marriage are those that somehow are grounded exclusively in theology. Any arguments I wish to make this evening are intended to appeal to people regardless of whether they have my faith, another faith or none. One must go forward on the basis of rational argument. One must seek the common good, seek to do justice as one's desire for justice must trump any ideological motivation. This is my starting point and I hope it is shared by all Members.

The majority of speakers in the House this evening have tended towards the view that there ought to be civil partnerships or same sex marriage. However, a majority of people in Ireland, certainly a majority of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members and probably a significant minority of Labour Party members, have a deep disquiet about civil partnerships. This is not because they are hostile towards people with same sex attractions or because they believe such people have fewer rights as citizens or less dignity, but because they believe the common good requires the State to prefer marriage, because of the complementarity of the sexes in the context of bringing up children. Moreover they believe there are other ways of seeking to do justice in those scenarios in which people in mutually dependent circumstances, who deserve every credit for making sacrifices for each other, should be allowed to confer benefits on each other and should be allowed to avail of certain benefits at the expense of the State. This is my view and we must move towards addressing those benefits and subsequently, as a separate issue, deal with the question of the State's interest or otherwise in recognising relationships other than marital relationships as we know them.

While Members will hear much on this issue in the media, it is disingenuous to take individual cases in which justice must be done, regardless of whether they pertain to inheritance in scenarios in which people who are mutually dependent find themselves in difficulties or to children who are not getting their rights. These issues must be considered in the context of the provisions that must be made in such cases. However, the argument that one somehow must create same sex partnerships to so do is both illogical and does a grave injustice to the many other scenarios in which people are not necessarily romantically involved but are engaged in the care and upbringing of children. One must keep clear the issues, which was my point in respect of Members' concern for justice and rational and evidence-based argument that must trump ideology.

The approaches taken by other countries in this regard do not matter as Members should examine it in the light of Irish constitutional traditions, which correctly speak of the centrality of marriage, as does the Constitution, in which the State pledges to "guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded". The State does this because it recognises that marriage is a unique institution in respect of children's needs. I disagree again with——