Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach Ghníomhach agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. The discussion on the Civil Partnership Bill has evoked deep emotions on all sides of the Chamber and in the wider public sphere. I have embarked on a difficult personal journey in examining my conscience and deeply held beliefs and I am satisfied that I have reached a balanced and principled objection to the provisions of the Bill. In relinquishing the Whip, I regret any difficulty my decision causes for the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. My stand has caused me some angst, as I have been a member of Fianna Fáil for 42 years and a public representative for 36 years, and it has not been easy to take the position I have taken.

Before I discuss my principal objections to the legislation, it is necessary to state clearly and unambiguously the rationale for my opposition to the Bill. I am strongly of the opinion that diversity in Irish society should be recognised and protected. I realise that in modern Ireland new forms of relationship must be afforded certain protections to reflect their circumstances. I am on record as having said same-sex couples and others in caring, dependent relationships should and must be respected and granted certain limited protections. I have watched in dismay as my position on the Bill has been misrepresented and distorted. I have been subjected to personal abuse and branded a bigot by certain elements. Once again, let me be perfectly clear that, as a republican and a Christian, I abhor discrimination against any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, gender, race or religion.

I have a quotation that captured my imagination on the back of my business card by Pedro Arrupe, a former superior general of the Jesuits: "Let there be men and women who would bend their energies not to promote the interests of the privileged, but to the extent possible, to reduce privilege in favour of the underprivileged." I would belie this if I were to take a prejudiced position against same-sex relationships.

As a democrat, I staunchly defend the right of every person to state his or her views on any matter. As a public representative, I am acutely aware of the position I hold in the public eye and the responsibility it carries. As difficult as this journey has been for me personally and professionally, I am compelled to follow my conscience and ask those who disagree with me to respect my contribution to this debate, as I have respected theirs.

I am not a recent convert to the opinions I hold. This matter was debated in the House as far back as 16 February 2005 and again on 27 February 2008 at the initiation of Senator Norris. I put the following motion to the parliamentary party:

The Fianna Fáil parliamentary party calls on the Government to ensure, when prescribing civil partnership legislation, that they guard with special care [taken from Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution] the fundamental position of the family; acknowledges that all forms of the family are entitled to help and support; and calls on the Government to continue giving special support, including unique financial and legal protections, to the institution of marriage, because of its uniquely pro-child nature, thereby protecting the traditional family unit as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the State as is prescribed in Article 41.1.2 of our Constitution.

The Bill, as drafted, is flawed in a number of ways. It discriminates against people in caring dependent relationships that are not sexual in nature, even though the Bill is being introduced in the name of equality. It also weakens the special status of the family in marriage, a matter we will deal with as we go through the Bill. I thought these problems could have been addressed without in any way detracting from the rights and entitlements justly due to persons in civil partnership arrangements such as property settlements, maintenance rights, succession rights of next of kin and so on.

Last week I received an e-mail from a lady and it is worth quoting from it:

I have been in a relationship for almost ten years, yet if my partner got ill, I would not even have the right to be by their side in hospital. This has happened once and it broke my heart. I urge you to consider how you would feel if you or someone you

love were in my position.

I responded and thanked her for the reasonable way she had presented her case:

I note your comments regarding next of kin and fully support your point of view on this. I am not at all unmindful of the major step forward it is for people in same sex relationships with regard to commitment, security, respect, social acceptance etc. My primary concern is in respect of protecting the Constitutional status of marriage, and in particular, the reasons behind that being in the Constitution.

Existing marriage rights should remain unique to marriage because of its uniquely pro-child nature. It is not discrimination to treat a unique institution such as marriage between a man and a woman in a unique manner.

I have concerns about data published in recent times which show the increase in the rate of marriage break down in the last 25 years and the growth in the numbers of lone parents and cohabiting couples. Personally, I do not think that this is desirable for society or in the best interests of children.

Anthropology and complementarity are important considerations in this debate. I accept fully that marriage is not the only relationship in which children are well cared for. However, we all form our views based on our education, life experiences, reason and conscience. When I ask myself if a child has rights, I say, "Yes." Most would agree with me. Do the influence and complementarity of a mother and father in a loving environment benefit and enhance the development of child? In reply to this question I say, "Definitely yes." Does a child have a right to a mother and a father? The answer is in the affirmative. Does the State, by its laws, have a duty to promote with unique measures the institution of marriage? I have challenged my own views on this matter and it is interesting that studies I have examined show that in the areas of health, education, employment and mental health children all score higher when they come from good, committed, loving, caring relationships within the institution of marriage. These studies were completed in the United Kingdom and the United States because we do not carry out such studies here.

I would like to challenge the definition of equality as provided by some. Equality is a concept that emerged in the late 18th century. It emerged in the American War of Independence, the French Revolution and the 1798 rebellion here. The aim was to ensure there was equality of opportunity for individuals. One of the principal forms is the right to life, about which I feel strongly. We also have a right to shelter, education, employment and to be cared for in ill health or old age. Some people who classify themselves as republican are adopting the 20th century left-wing liberal thinking in regard to their interpretation of equality. I have said before - I make no apology for it - that many causes have hijacked equality as a way of advancing their own cause. I do not criticise them for it but we must look intelligently at, and interpret precisely, what we mean by it.

When we come to the formulation of legislation, independent, objectively evaluated studies must be done. In that regard, I am interested to note that Ms Kearns of the Equality Authority is in favour of marriage equality. Since it is not in the Bill, she is going to contact the Law Reform Commission to make that case. The chairman of the Law Reform Commission, Judge McGuinness, has clearly expressed her views in that regard. The Ombudsman for Children has done the same. Do people working in the public service and in institutions funded by the State have any obligation to uphold our Constitution and its requirements? Is choreography at play here?

The question of conscience has been brought up. I have noticed with alarm, as have others, aggressive secularism entirely intolerant of any contrary views or opinions. The other day I quoted Anan Grover, a UN official on human rights, who has taken a view that not only is Poland wrong in regard to abortion but that there cannot be any freedom of conscience on that matter.

I refer to an article I read lately which stated that conscience is the only bulwark against the totalitarian tendencies of all states and that this finds recognition in the present German Basic Law, or conditions, which, to avoid a repetition of the totalitarianism of the Nazi period when the conscience of citizens was mercilessly crushed, insists that those elected to parliament shall be representative of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions and responsible only to their conscious. That comes from Article 38.1 of the German Constitution. We would do well to be mindful of it.

I said I received abusive e-mails and posters were put up in my own town. However, I also received communications from gay people who have genuine concerns that my stance would, in some way, impede progress for their relationships. I will read from a correspondence I received, which is worth reading. While it may seem self-congratulatory at the start, when one gets to the substance of it, one will note a headline lesson for all of us:

Dear Senator,

I watched with interest your contribution to "The Frontline" programme this week. Your views were expressed with care and in a thoughtful fashion and any bill before the Senate should be subject to careful examination, amendments, thoughtful argument and an unimpeded discussion. The idea that anyone who contributes to this discussion and asks hard questions and looks at options is a bigot, homophobic or anti-equality is completely foreign to me as someone who supports the ideas and philosophy of a true and inclusive republic. I am the founder of GLEN in 1988 and a FF supporter. I am not conflicted in either as a Gay man.....

The issue before you in the Senate is civil partnership and the bill can only be strengthened when you and others speak honestly and thoughtfully about your concerns, reservations and alternatives. By doing so you articulate the views of so many people who have legitimate democratic views. I sir may be a gay man who has founded and worked with GLEN and other equality organisations/issues. Today I work as a shop steward.....

I will not stand by and have people who disagree with my views on union issues dismissed by one line comments of bigotry, homophobia etc.....

I suggest with genuine respect that you make your views known in this debate without fear or apology and in doing so you will continue to enhance democracy and help recover any lost reputation that the political class have suffered recently. If I had the fear of speaking out in the past because my views were unpopular or not of their time, many people would not have the courage today to take their views forward to enhance this society. Any suggestion that societies development is only or best served by everyone agreeing with the most popular contemporary ideas is dictatorship by the back door. Publish your views and be assured that I will be one of the many people who will continue to regard you with respect as an honest, thoughtful man who has the best interests of our republic at heart. Need I say any more?

All I would say to that is what an enlightened and generous mind to articulate such a challenging standard of thought and debate. It is the epitome of true democracy.

I will again quote Edmund Burke who gave his views on the role of a public representative. He stated:

It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.....But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.

If Edmund Burke is not a sufficient authority for Members of the House, I will quote one of the great intellectuals in history, Albert Einstein, who said never do anything against conscience, even when the State demands it. We would do well to remember that.

I spoke to the Taoiseach about my reservations and I genuinely appreciate the fact he had respect for the principled stand I took and I thank him for that. The Minister and I have been good friends for many years. A long time ago, I told him I would oppose him every step of the way in regard to sections of this Bill but hoped it would not interfere with our friendship. It is my intention that it will not.

I also spoke to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, because the Green Party is our partner in Government and I did not want anything misdirected his way as to why I am taking this position. When I finished speaking, he said to thine own self be true. It is a maxim I have lived by all my life and I will continue to do so now and in the future.