Alex White (Labour)

I entirely agree with you, a Chathaoirligh, but the finger inevitably points at the person whose microphone is on. I am just pointing out my innocence on this occasion. It was not my phone.

I strongly support what Senators Bacik and Norris are proposing in these amendments. However, Senator Fitzgerald may be right in terms of the sequence of events, given that we are to have civil partnership legislation. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with Senator Bacik or Senator Norris but, curiously enough, Senator Norris's proposal may not have the same exposure to the problem of being premature as, with respect, has Senator Bacik's.

While I am not seeking to differ in any sense with what she is seeking to achieve, on the contrary, Senator Bacik's amendment No. 3 contemplates "a registered civil partnership". There is no provision in Irish law for a registered civil partnership, although I am not saying that that alone defeats her amendment. However, it may be that what Senator Fitzgerald said is more correct as regards that amendment than it is concerning Senator Norris's amendment No. 20, which may not fall foul of that particular objection. It refers to "a couple of the same sex over 21 years of age who can demonstrate that they have been living together within the jurisdiction for not less than two years".

Without getting too bogged down in the legislation, I wish to make a few more points. We are inclined to debate the debate a lot here, rather than getting down to the issues of substance that are contained in the Bill. I take in good faith what Senator Mullen says about the need for respect for one's point of view. He made that point before and I agreed with it then too. As a general point, however, I find it hard to take if somebody says in a debate like this that it is important that the values of respect for one's point of view are at the heart of what we say, but then goes on to say that the effect of the two amendments would be destructive. Senator Mullen said that clearly and did not seek to moderate the point he made in respect of the word "destructive", which he used again at the end of his speech. The word "destructive" derives from the word "destroy" so, essentially the argument is being made that if we are to permit adoption by same-sex couples, as contemplated by these amendments, it would destroy something. Would it destroy marriage or what would it destroy? "Destroy" is a big word.

We are essentially turning these arguments into abstractions because Senator Mullen invites us to look at the Constitution and its natural law base. We then end up in what appears to be an entire abstraction. This comes up in all these debates. It first arose 25 or 26 years ago when we debated the issue of abortion. It also came up concerning the divorce referendum when it was argued trenchantly that if we were to allow divorce, it would destroy marriage. That is what was stated at the time. I am quite sure the words "undermine", "destroy" and "destructive" were used then, or words that meant the same thing. Nevertheless, the availability of divorce in our jurisdiction has not destroyed marriage. It did not destroy the institution of marriage for those who were already married or for people who got married since divorce was introduced in Ireland. Therefore it is not destructive. Without further elaboration, I cannot see why or how it can be seriously argued that changing the law to allow for adoption in the circumstances proposed by Senators Bacik and Norris would destroy anything. That point needs to be elaborated further than just stating that it is in our Constitution.

That begs the question of why it is in the Constitution. While I can understand that historically, if it is in the Constitution and it is not right or we do not agree with it, maybe we should take it out of the Constitution. It is a circular argument to say "You better look at the Constitution because it is in there". As Senator Mullen said, one must address the rational arguments for it, not just the fact that it appears in the Constitution or that the Constitution would appear to mean what is being advocated by Senator Mullen — that marriage is based on a union between a man and a woman. That would appear to be the position under our Constitution, but the argument does not end there. The Constitution is an important solemn document but the argument must be made. I do not agree those advocating adoption by same-sex couples have to carry, as Senator Mullen put it, the burden of proof of demonstrating that it should be allowed. We need to get away from the abstract and examine everyday life as already pointed out by some Members.

Senator Mullen acknowledged there are many good instances in circumstances where children have been adopted by same-sex couples and they are successful and loving families. The burden shifts to the other side of the argument to demonstrate why same-sex adoption cannot be legislated for in the real world. In fact, the burden is carried as much by the other side of the argument.

Where is this right that claims a child must be adopted into a marriage based on union between a man and a woman? What is it derived from? Has the child the right to a father and a mother? I would like to hear more arguments about this. I believe, as Senator Healy Eames and others have said, a child has the right to a loving and nurturing upbringing. Is there a right that the couple should be of the opposite sex? How could we vindicate the right that there should be two parents, because many children are brought up by one? There are too many abstractions in this debate. Our role is to be practical legislators. Of course, we have to have regard to all the arguments, statistics and otherwise. We must look at each other's arguments across the Chamber. We need to carefully consider the arguments of those who disagree with us. It is not enough for us to say, "It is in the Constitution and that is the way things should be".

I would need to be convinced that the common good would be affected by this proposal for same-sex couples. As the Minister of State said earlier, the welfare of the child has to be at heart of all of this debate. I am not convinced the welfare of the child in all circumstances can only be vindicated by the status quo. In fact, I need to be convinced by those on the other side of the argument rather than me having to convince them.