Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

I second the Government amendment. I do so having listened to an exceptionally measured contribution from the Minister. If that same speech were given 12 months or two years ago, I believe we would all feel relatively happy with it. However, the goalposts have obviously now changed, which is why the debate has taken a different turn. I was encouraged by the Taoiseach's statement in 2006 at the launch of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution report on the family when he said:

It is clear that the Committee has worked hard to get this delicate balance right. It has taken a pragmatic and compassionate approach, rather than a legalistic or ideological one. It is no surprise that there was not a full consensus on the Committee as regards some of its conclusions.

It has laid out a strategy that does not require wholesale constitutional change. It avoids divisive battles on issues over which people hold very strong opinions. In particular, I find the Committee's reasoning on the definition of the family — and why that definition should not be changed at this time — convincing. The reality is that the traditional family based on marriage has presented great benefits to our society. It has given social stability and, in general, it has provided a most favourable context in which to rear children. Many believe that to dilute the protection given to the family based on marriage would be to jeopardise the common good.

Senator Norris made a very powerful and telling speech — I would not expect anything less from such an eminent Senator. In a way it reminded us of the deep emotions involved in this issue. It is very easy to approach this in a clinical manner. It is perhaps even easy to approach it in a theological manner. However, at the end of the day human emotions are involved and they are exceptionally deep-seated emotions. It is only when one comes across people or is a friend of people with a different sexual orientation from one's own that one realises they do not have two heads, that one is able to interact with them and that much of the stigma which existed is no longer there as a barrier or obstruction.

For that reason I was exceptionally impressed by the whole tone of the discussion we have had so far this evening. In other circumstances, as I am sure Senator Norris would agree, such as on the Order of Business this morning and yesterday when we discussed issues that I will not mention, there would be considerable interaction and heckling in a nice sense. However, that is not the case in this debate because we realise this is a very serious and important matter — a point Senator Norris, himself, made. It is fundamental and will obviously have an impact one way or another not just on society but also in a biological way on the very existence of the human race. That might sound a little bit exaggerated and far-fetched. However, we know that as the parameters are moved, new elements are brought to bear.

Somebody has said it is not a child issue — I do not accept that. Our policy needs to be child-centred in this regard. While I accept that we have the exceptions of single parents and so on, the ideal environment in which to rear children is the traditional family with the biological parents. I do not fully accept the findings put forward by Senator Norris. I heard a very good discussion on radio last Sunday evening with which I was very impressed. However, the bona fides of that finding was questioned very much. It was seen more as a report rather than research that had been carried out in a scientific way. I do not want to score points on that or to lower it to this point. However, when children come into the equation we must consider what has now happened in Spain. A birth certificate in Spain can no longer carry the names of parents by law. One should try to tell the traditional family that in the future it is possible, given what has happened in other jurisdictions, that the parents' names might not be permitted to appear on a birth certificate. There is a certain degree of taking away one's identity. It also takes away the continuity of the family and raises exceptionally important questions regarding succession rights, which needs to be considered. That does not help the cause of those in same sex unions.

We need to pull back somewhat from where the debate has arrived and review from whence we have come and the progress that has been made in that time. There are many legal issues that need to be considered. I take to heart the experience of Senator Prendergast in a hospital where a gay couple with a child could not be regarded as the guardians or whatever. That is of concern and we need to consider such issues. The same is true of property rights. It is not possible to say it is genuinely right if two people have lived together for 20 or 30 years, probably have pooled their savings and worked together to build up whatever property they have that in some way the remaining partner does not have rights in those cases. I would probably even go a step further which may contradict a point made earlier. I would not totally rule out the same rights being given to siblings of a certain age. I am glad to see Senator Norris nodding his head.