Seanad debates

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

6:00 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent)

Tá dhá noiméad nó mar sin agam.

I dissent from Senator Norris's comments on the letter in The Irish Times from the esteemed psychiatrist, Professor Patricia Casey. She asked why, if children being raised by same-sex couples should be given the protections of marriage, such protections should not be given to children being raised in other non-marital family unions. This is a perfectly rational argument and should not be characterised as being nasty or mean-spirited. Does the fact that children are found in unions other than in traditional marriage mean one should automatically create new State recognition for relationships akin to marriage? This is disingenuous because one can confer the benefits on the children. However, the State still has an interest in seeking to promote that relationship which the evidence increasingly shows works to the good of children, in terms of the complementarity of the sexes and the stable upbringing of children in society. This is a time when marriage as we know it is under much pressure.

One must avoid the flawed arguments. I note in particular that the High Court was unconvinced in the Zappone and Gilligan case about arguments that children raised in same sex relationships do equally well as children raised in marital relationships. The point is that almost none of the studies that have been cited in the House has been longitudinal. They do not measure the welfare of children of same sex couples over the long term. Those that do measure such outcomes use such small sample sizes as to be unreliable. This is the reason that in her High Court ruling on the recent case, Miss Justice Elizabeth Dunne stated the State should proceed cautiously in respect of this research.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.