John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

One of the benefits of speaking later in a debate is that one has an opportunity to listen to the views of earlier speakers. I hope to give Senator Alex White reasons some of us oppose sections of the Bill and have proposed amendments thereto. When one listens to other speakers one also hears inaccuracies. I know certain of the Senators present are pushing strongly for gay marriage in the belief that this is an area in which we can reach a certain type of enlightenment if we follow the European and American route. I have news for the Senators in question. We have seen the future and it is as follows. Last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that gay marriage is not a human right. Moreover, California, which is associated with Hollywood, flower power and Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently voted against gay marriage. That is the future.

Reference was made to my home town of Thurles. I raise this issue because Thurles was made to appear like Birmingham, Alabama, or Little Rock, Arkansas. I assure the House that it is a fine town of good, decent and tolerant people who would offer assistance if asked to do so. I do not like my home town being presented as if it was a bigoted place.

We also heard the words of President John F. Kennedy being misquoted. The words cited were used out of context. In the 1960s, President Kennedy made a speech in Dallas in which he referred to the politics of the time. His sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, has repeatedly made clear, without contradiction by any other member of the Kennedy family, that John F. Kennedy was pro-life. There is a limit to the distance some people are prepared to go in separating their sincerely held religious beliefs from their civic duty.

Those who regard opponents of the Bill as negative are wrong. Truly inclusive civil partnership would include all couples in caring dependent relationships, including same sex couples, cohabiting couples and individuals in caring relationships which are non-sexual, and give such persons rights that would protect them against economic vulnerability in the event of a break-up. A group of Senators will propose an amendment to this effect.

The rights to which the amendment refers should include property settlement and maintenance rights, succession rights and next-of-kin rights, while other existing rights should remain unique because marriage is uniquely pro-child. It does not discriminate to treat a unique institution such as the marriage of a man and woman in a unique manner.

It is proposed in the Bill that the words "marital status" be removed from other Acts such as the Pension Act 1990, Employment Equality Act 1998, Equal Status Act 2000 and Civil Registration Act 2004 and replaced with the words "civil status". This strongly implies that there is a direct equivalence between marriage and civil partnership and tends to undercut the argument of those who state they are different. We will recommend on Committee Stage that the Bill be amended to read "marital status and civil partnership status".

We also fundamentally believe that a constitutional challenge may be taken to the legislation on the basis of equality. There is no doubt that the Bill should provide protection for religious organisations and individuals who conscientiously object to facilitating events and services where such conflict with their religious ethos. We will recommend that the Government accepts the conscience clause proposed by two Church of Ireland bishops. It is worded in such a way that the unintended consequences feared by some cannot occur.

What do I mean by the words "unintended consequences"? This morning, I walked through the grounds of Christ Church, a beautiful Presbyterian church on Rathgar Road. I was taught how one should dance properly in a hall located under the roof of the church. It would be unfair to ask to hold a civil ceremony breakfast or celebration in this hall, located as it is within church grounds, if the church authorities are unwilling to do so.

It would be unfair to ask if those people did not wish to have, what should we call it, the civil ceremony breakfast or celebration in that hall within church grounds. This was catered for previously in 1997 when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. This section exempts religious employers from aspects of employment equality legislation and in so doing allows them to protect their ethos. In other words they do not need to employ people who would undermine their ethos. In arguing in favour of the constitutionality of section 37, counsel for the Attorney General argued that the Employment Equality Act had to contain section 37 in order to give effect to Article 44.2.1° of the Constitution, which states: "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen." If section 37 was necessary to ensure the constitutionality of the Employment Equality Act, then logically a similar section should be added to the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill in order to protect freedom of religion and conscience as required by Article 44.2.1°. The absence of such a section surely calls into question the constitutionality of the Bill. There is an alternative and where there is an alternative, it is grossly unfair to put a church, and those responsible for the church building and ethos, into such a position.

There is a difficulty with the inheritance provision which appears to be anti-family. The children of a deceased civil partner could be seriously disinherited if the partner dies intestate.

We do not have a schedule of financial costs involved in the Bill. It is unusual not to have a breakdown of the costs to the Exchequer over the ensuing years. If that could be arranged, it would be helpful. With that in mind, I wish to mention one further speaker who quoted Hamlet: "Thus does conscience make cowards of us all", implying that those who vote according to their conscience are cowards. I wish to deal with that in the context of the three people in Fianna Fáil because that is the specific reference. I come from a family that has for generations supported the republican ethos. I know there was a man in Clare who was asked how long he had supported Fianna Fáil. His answer was "98". He was asked if that meant 1998 and he said "No, 1798". He believed he had supported Fianna Fáil from the start of the republican movement in 1798. Thankfully I can trace a direct line back to that time, through the Fenians and the War of Independence. There were two active service members, my grandfather and grandmother, founder members of Fianna Fáil. If somebody thinks it is easy or that it is cowardly to give up the whip in a party in which I solemnly believe and sincerely believe what it is about, then surely they are mistaken. It is a most difficult thing to do when the repercussions of losing the party whip are ending up outside the parliamentary party. For some of us that is like being outside the door of the family home. Senators should not feel for a moment that acting on one's conscience is the same-----