Dan Boyle (Green Party)

We are coming to terms with who we are as a people. In having this debate and passing legislation, we should mark it as a celebration and an expression of pride. That it is not full equality or perfect is something I and my party acknowledge. That it needs to address elements such as children and the opinions of the Ombudsman for Children is most important. The contents of the Bill will bring us forward and I look forward to the day, as Senator Bacik has said, when the first ceremonies will be performed in the country.

I wish to address the question of conscience, as it has been expressed as a retarding effect on whether the legislation should pass. I acknowledge the presence of Senator Norris and the role he has played. In the game of social catch-up this country has played and coming to terms with our repressed attitude to sexuality, we have waited far too long and experienced intervals far too wide. The decriminalisation of homosexuality occurred in the United Kingdom in 1967, but it was 26 years later that such legislation was passed here. It is almost 25 years since Senator Norris initiated his action in the European Court of Justice that helped to bring about the Irish legislation in 1993. Such an interval is far too long.

We can never have an Irish solution to an Irish problem with these issues again. This was a society where condoms had to be purchased on prescription if a person was married. How was that ever seen as a stepping stone approach to a modern society? We have come a long way. I am concerned that some repressed attitudes remain. Some of these attitudes were expressed earlier today, while others were expressed in 1993. We must acknowledge that some of the negative comments made in 1993 are being reversed and that the matters to which they relate have been addressed. The passage of this legislation will lead to a similar change of mindsets. The holding of ceremonies marking civil partnerships will create the momentum required to see to it that the full legislation required in this area is brought forward.

On the subject of conscience, I refer to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his US presidential campaign of 1960. During that campaign he was subjected to a high level of criticism from religious fundamentalists about his Catholicism, how this would affect his role in office and how social policy in the United States would, if he were elected, reflect a particular Roman Catholic bias. During a speech he made in Dallas he stated:

I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair ... and whose fulfilment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation ... Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.

The term "aggressive secularism" has been used in the debate on the Bill. I take the opportunity to out myself as a secularist. I do not perceive secularism to be in any way aggressive. To me, it is the essence of tolerance.