Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

This is an important and good day for the Seanad and the Oireachtas in general, particularly given the passage of legislation of this nature. I wish to outline the reasons my party and I are supporting the Bill. I also wish to examine some of the arguments made to the effect that passage of the Bill is a bad development and that it will in some way harm our society.

The personal insight which makes me want to support the Bill is that none of us can chose whom we love or the nature of our sexuality. These are chosen for us by others. We grow into them, they are not determined by the choices we make. One does not look at another person and decide that one is attracted to or loves him or her. It is something that happens; it is something one finds within oneself. It is something that represents one of the finest dimensions of what it is to be human, care and be a social being. That is what the Bill is about.

Legislation is often justified by the use of the language of rights. I understand why this happens. At times, however, the language of rights - perhaps because it is contested - is cold and unforgiving in nature. The Bill must be passed because it relates to matters of a softer nature. It is about the idea that one can love another person and that the State must accord a degree of worth to people's relationships and recognise that equality must be afforded to them.

I have considered the track record of my party in this matter. Senator Bacik detailed the work her party has done on it. Following her contribution, I discussed with her the worth of that work and that fact that it had led to the creation of a consensus which had led us to today. In 2005 my party published a document - put together by former Senator Sheila Terry - in which we argued in favour of the concept of civil partnership and outlined why we were of the view that civil partnership would be an addition to Irish society.

It is for the reasons I have outlined that I am glad to take the opportunity to acknowledge that at last matters over which we have no control - namely, our sexuality and the people we decide to love or to whom we decide to be attracted - are, as Senator Boyle stated, coming out into the open. These are issues we are now prepared to discuss and which the law is willing to recognise. There will no longer be a need for tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of relationships in this country to be conducted in the shadows. Under the Bill, such relationships will be given recognition by the State.

I have indicated my views on this matter and stated what I believe love and sexuality to involve. I am married to a woman and have two children. In many ways, I am the kind of person who others might say could be threatened by legislation such as that before the House. There are those who might argue that the Bill somehow threatens the value of my marriage and my family and the foundations on which these are based. This prompts me to ask how giving somebody the right to be recognised on the death certificate of his or her partner - this was an example to which the Minister referred - might lessen the value of that which I possess. How would granting such a right threaten or subdue that of which I am lucky enough to be a part? Does it make me love my wife any more or does it make my children love me any more? How can it do this?

I am of the view that granting this right does the opposite to that which certain people perceive and, in fact, recognises that my neighbours and friends, the neighbours I do not know and the people whom I do not know and may never meet have feelings and emotions that are equal in worth to mine. I have no doubt that this legislation will not threaten my family. Rather, it will add to it because it recognises that there are others who will be accorded the same recognition and sense of worth already accorded to me. This does not threaten the family, rather it broadens its definition and allows more people access to it, which must be good. I argue that this is a development we must welcome.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the concept of conscience and the notion of freedom of conscience. This leads on to some of the religious themes that have framed the overall debate. I try to follow my faith and attend church. However, I am a legislator and a public servant. In that context, I cannot merely legislate for those who are of the same faith as me. Neither can I legislate only for those who are of the same sexuality as me. It is my duty to put in place a framework within which all faiths and all those of differing sexualities can prosper, be secure and exist alongside each other.

That is what I believe our duty is and what the concept of a republic is all about. That is why I see the introduction of legislation such as this as being an addition to our republic and a refinement to it. It is another step in a journey we must continue to make. The idea that someone who is a public servant trusted with implementing the law would have the ability to choose not to do so shows the lessons we claim to have learned in other parts of our lives about one law being the law and having no choice but to implement it, and about all people being equal in front of the law and those charged with implementing it recognising that, makes me contend that idea has not sunk through.

A public servant has a duty to serve the public. If one is legislating for the public one must recognise that public is varied, wide and has many definitions within it. I fundamentally reject the concept that the Bill represents a threat to conscience and asking someone to implement the law which they are sworn to uphold represents an attack on them. A Bill such as this moves us a step forward and not a step back.

Another point I hear made by people who have concerns about the Bill is on the idea of choices and that deciding not to give legal status to brothers or sisters who might be looking after each other or to individuals who might be caring for each other is a reason to reject the Bill. However, sometimes law making is about making choices and doing one thing today and something else tomorrow. The fact that tomorrow one will deal with the needs of a separate group of people does not deliver a valid argument for rejecting what is being done today. The idea that by looking after and recognising the worth of one part of our community and stating that the issues and needs of another part of the community will be dealt with on another day is not a reason for rejecting what is being done today. Law making, like economics and other decisions we must make in life, is about choices. It is about deciding that a certain matter will be done today and will be done well.

Other colleagues have spoken about how this represents a step along the way and there are other issues we need to look at. I happen to agree with the Government's decision to look at the issues in the Bill and to contend with and manage many of the difficulties on children on another day. On an issue such as this, building consensus and support to allow people time to reflect on their positions and themselves is the right way to go. Implementing it and dealing with amendments such as those tabled by my colleague, Senator Regan, does not mean these points should not be made or looked at today. However, the approach of the Bill is the right choice to make. We are recognising what we should have recognised a long time ago, that to be human is to be governed by forces over which we have no control, and that is what the Bill is about and why I am glad to see it before the House and glad that my party supports it.