Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. If this legislation had been drafted in a different way, it would have been excellent and would have attracted near universal support. Unfortunately, as drafted, the Bill merely masquerades as a piece of ground-breaking, compassionate, equality legislation. The reality is that in parts the Bill is cruel and discriminatory, not something of which to be proud. It elevates one group of people, who have a legitimate claim to certain rights, duties and protections and whose loving relationships deserve to be acknowledged and respected by all, over other categories of similarly deserving people in caring and dependent relationships. This may be permitted by the letter of our constitutional law but it is at huge variance with the spirit. It is done in the name of equality but this is a rather hollow claim when one examines the true meaning of equality under the Constitution. There is no true respect for equality in the way, for example, in which this Bill will infringe on people's freedom of conscience. There is no equality under this Bill for the conscientious objector.

I note, too, the title of the Minister's speech which referred, still, to the Civil Partnership Bill. Does this mean it was a cut and paste job? He mentioned that the forum was here, in this Chamber. He is welcome to this forum which, he stated was the place to engage with people rather than in the media. The fact remains this is a somewhat privileged forum. The Minister is in some way protected from what we might call the close-ground hurling and man marking under which some of his arguments might have withered. He would not meet with people.

On the matter of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network receiving funding, while I acknowledge Senator Norris's correction that the funding for a particular booklet came from another source, the fact remains that a great amount of money from the Government has gone to GLEN. I have no problem with that per se but by refusing to meet other people who have legitimate concerns, the Minister was allowed to get away with glib rhetorical responses to people's concerns in the Dáil, responses that did not address the careful nuances in the argument people made around conscience. That is greatly to be regretted. In recent months as we debated this Bill what we have heard are stock rhetorical responses. There has been no serious willingness to engage, which says a lot.

The Minister spoke of the ignorance and homophobia which gay people and their families [have] lived with" down through the years. Sadly, this Bill will not change that but will add further injustice. I would like to think I, too, am the enemy of ignorance and homophobia. For example, I am on the board of trustees of approximately 112 secondary schools and wish to do my utmost to ensure those schools are cold houses for anyone who would target or humiliate a person on grounds of any kind, including perceptions around sexual orientation.

The Minister spoke of State recognition of civil partnership between such persons so that they can live in a supportive and secure legal environment. I support such an environment for people, whether same-sex partners or others. The Minister said we all deserve equal treatment before the law and as we go about our daily lives. I, too, agree with that. What does equality mean, however, in regard to the specific issue of public recognition for certain relationships other than marriage? We have not had a real, thoroughgoing debate about that.

My view, which I do not believe to be bigoted, is that the right to marry is the right to form a stable, publicly supported union with a person of the opposite sex. The reason we traditionally distinguish in favour of such unions is because they provide the socially supported context for the upbringing of children. That is our constitutional position but also, I believe, the position borne out by the analysis of what works best for children most of the time. Advocates for same-sex marriage and this Bill have no problem distinguishing between couples on the basis of whether they have a sexual, intimate or committed relationship. If they are capable of that distinction, why do they reject my right and the right of others to make another distinction, namely, to distinguish between relationships on the basis of whether they provide that socially preferred context for the upbringing of children? That is the key to the difference of opinion about this legislation, but the Government has been somewhat silent on this. We hear many references to what cannot be done because of constitutional requirements but hear no real understanding of, for example, what social science data have to say about what works for children nor have we heard of any thoroughgoing analysis of what children's best interests would demand.

The Government talks about the need to validate and protect explicitly the relationships of thousands of couples whose mutual commitment has been invisible. There should be freedom to have a private life, to be free from humiliation and mockery, and to be free to confer rights and benefits on other people. What exactly "validation" means will be a matter for legitimate debate. At a time when in many quarters in our society there is an acknowledgement of the need to support and encourage people into the institution of marriage, most people, if one were to ask them, would give huge marks, for example, to the courage and dedication of lone parents but very few people would say there is no difference, all things being equal, in the outcomes for children. Most people who are attentive in a sincere way to the needs of children would say there are certain models we should promote. The model in which I believe is one where a child, as far as possible, has the right to the care and support of his or her two biological parents. That is not always possible, sadly, owing to life circumstances, but are we going to shed it even as an aspiration? The willingness to shed that as an aspiration underlines the comments of many people who have supported this Bill.

The are good provisions in the Bill, which must be acknowledged, including the accessing of State benefits, for example, carer's allowance to care for a seriously ill partner, and addressing the problem of the recording of a deceased partner on a death certificate as single. I have no problem with measures to cater for those kinds of situations.

It is interesting that the Minister spoke of constitutional balance. He spoke about the need to balance the entitlement to equality under Article 40.1 - which in reference to equality also refers, let it be noted, to the need to acknowledge differences in capacity and function - with the special protection Article 41 gives to marriage. We could ask questions about the Bill in regard to marriage, for example, whether the provisions on maintenance and property adjustment orders, rights of redress and so on could in some circumstances fetter the rights of a future spouse of someone who is currently a civil partner.

There is another balance that the Minister has completely failed to take into account and this why the conscience issue is so important. It is the need to balance the State's ability to provide for a model of civil partnership and its need to require that its officials enable it to carry out that new legal responsibility with, on the other hand, a recognition that on this issue there are sincere and divergent views in our society. This issue is not the new slavery. Many people who have been very strong over the years in advocating for rights, whether of immigrant people or members of the Traveller community, have what some people in this House would call a conservative view on traditional sexual morality. It seems that Senator Boyle would refer to it as a continuing immaturity in regard to sexuality. I regret those comments because whereas I support the removal of stigma in general terms, I believe there are truths and disagreements about what is true when it comes to discussing what works best for people. There are divergent moral views in the areas of sexuality and to what relationships the State should give public recognition and privileges. Does Senator Boyle believe that classic Christian teaching on sexuality is a sign of immaturity? In his comments there is a reaction against the narrowness and meanness of the past when people were humiliated, mocked, derided, treated as different and their lives were made miserable as a result. However, one is going to the other extreme if one insists that people who have what one might call a traditional, conservative view on what relationships should get State support and particular recognition, leaving aside the issue of sexuality, also have a view that is what we might call officially discouraged and that they might face the might and the rigour of law in certain circumstances. That is more redolent of Communist Russia where religion was officially discouraged. The balance that the Minister has missed out on here is that he has forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the protections specifically given to freedom of conscience in our Constitution and to the rights of churches, among other groups, to organise and manage their own affairs.

On the John F. Kennedy issue, there needs to be a very careful discussion about the interconnection between faith and politics. My belief is different from Senator Boyle's. I believe that everyone has the right and the duty to bring their understanding of reality to the ballot box and into their job as legislators. However, as a legislator, I may start from a point of view, I may try, as Senator Donohoe said, to be Christian in my life and try to live out my faith, but when I make an argument on public policy, I make an argument that can also be shared by people who do not share my religious views or who, perhaps, do not have any religious views. When debating the issue of abortion, for example, it would be wrong to categorise those who have a conservative position as coming from a religious perspective which means, therefore, we do not need to engage with their argument. What nonsense, what intolerance and what anti-intellectual rubbish.

The same principle applies to the issues in this debate. If I make a point that the State ought to support the institution of marriage, I believe the social data on marriage supports the notion that marriage is what works best for children and I can point to it supporting that notion. If I further believe it is unjust to give particular privileges to couples on the basis of a sexual, intimate relationship other than a more general caring, dependent relationship, that certain religious people whose concerns I may not personally share feel that in conscience they want to go the other way, for example, that they would rather not rent a facility, and that those people should be catered for in a pluralistic society, that is not coming from a religious inspiration and it should not be categorised as some old fashioned, narrow kind of bigotry. What I am proposing is something much healthier than what the Minister is proposing or what the Green Party is supporting, which is a form of moral coercion. The Government has gone from the old extreme of the past, where people were morally coerced into one kind of lifestyle, to a new extreme whereby, in future, if people who differ in conscience - the most respectable and law-abiding people who are members of the families of the parties in government - dare to signal a conscientious objection to civil partnership because they have a particular view about the importance of marriage in society, the Government will impose the full rigours of the law on them. I can only say shame on it for contemplating such an approach. The same goes for an individual or an institution which has a property which, were it to rent it out in certain situations, might feel in all conscience it would be violating its ethos.

I remind the Minister of section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. Our equality legislation is full of legitimate exemptions to deal with different types of situations related to age, height in some cases, and gender in some cases, such as where one was hiring a person to look after one's mother and give her intimate care. There are many exceptions in equality legislation. Surely it is possible to recognise that we live in a society where there are divergent moral views. Can the majority here not be tolerant enough to recognise that and say it does not impinge on the implementation of the civil partnership legislation if we allow such people to courteously and constructively disengage? Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act allows religious-run institutions to make necessary decisions-----