Rónán Mullen (Independent)

It is very hard to have this debate because, despite the many welcome advances we have made in our ability to discuss a range of issues openly, people on both sides of the argument, particularly those with a traditional view such as mine, can easily and quickly feel demonised. They sometimes feel bullied into not expressing their views. I would like for people never to abandon values of absolute respect, regardless of their point of view, even if they feel that those points of view are destructive. No doubt Senator Norris believes that my point of view is destructive. Some of his and Senator Bacik's points of view, were they to carry weight, would be destructive of our society and injurious to the dignity of persons. That is my only motivation in speaking on these issues. I would rather that people's arguments on these issues were never characterised as religious. I describe myself as religious and know that Senator Norris is also a religious man. We have very different views on this issue just as people who do not share my faith or any faith might hold different views, or perhaps the same views.

I try to approach the issue from the point of view of respect for what I regard as the natural law and its philosophy, which is far from being the preserve of religious people, as Professor John Finnis in Oxford makes clear. I also try to seek out the common good. I am absolutely at one with Senator Bacik in trying to work out the implications of the statement that the welfare of a child shall be paramount. That is my starting point in respect of a range of issues, whether research that involves the destruction of embryos or adoption by same sex couples. As Senator Ross said on another topic, on another occasion, it is inaccurate to portray as exclusively religious or sectarian viewpoints that are deeply held and whose premises perhaps differ from those of the proponents of these amendments. It is dangerous to label the views of other people as either sectarian or religious, although I support the right of religious people to advance a religion-based argument. I hear all sorts of arguments based on prejudice and personal convenience every day of the week. Every voter and public representative is entitled to take his or her lived experience into the ballot box and the debating chamber. My motivation is to seek out the common good based on rational argument and principles that seek to vindicate the dignity of the person in all circumstances, without fear or favour. It is in that spirit that I approach the amendments tabled by Senators Norris and Bacik. I am taking as my starting point the constitutional architecture in which we operate. I refer to the State's pledge in the Constitution to "guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded". I heard what Senator Norris said about Mr. Justice Costello's views. It would be the settled view of most people in society that the Constitution prefers the family based on marriage — by which I mean marriage between a man and a woman — not because it wants to be hard on anybody or to disrespect anybody's private life, but because it believes that marriage offers the optimum set of circumstances for the upbringing of children in our society. That is not to say that children who find themselves in circumstances other than marriage are not well loved and, in many cases, very well reared. The business of the State, and the reason the State takes an interest in marriage, as distinct from leaving it as a private arrangement between parties——