Fiona O'Malley (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and thank him for staying as long as he has throughout the day. This is an important Bill, one to which he is clearly committed. I will praise him in the first instance, but later I will outline a few problems with the Bill. He has a reputation of being something of a conservative, but I find that he is far from being a conservative in introducing the Bill. It certainly is not one that would have been dreamed up by a conservative. The way in which the Minister worded his speech showed that he was a man of compassion in his working environment before entering politics. He has recognised for a long time that the issue of equality for gay and lesbian people needed to be addressed.

To some extent, I am on the horns of a dilemma. As a republican, I truly believe in equality, that we should all be subject to the same laws. As legislators, we must frame laws in such a way that they provide for equality; we cannot wilfully frame laws that fall short of that expectation. The Minister acknowledged that the Bill does not provide for equality. That is why some in the Chamber and some in the gay and lesbian rights groups are not happy with it. The Minister stated that the Bill "demonstrates our commitment to full equality by providing an important supportive legal framework." That was a lovely way of putting it. I am not sure, just because it is not providing for equality by allowing all the same access to marriage, that this is a reason not to support it. There are many in the gay community who welcome this step, while many on both sides of the House have mentioned that they see it as a staging post, not as the end. Having gone this far and provided for drafting legislation to provide for equality to a certain level, why do we not go the whole way and do what we know in our hearts is the right thing to do? If we truly consider ourselves to be republicans, we should provide for this.

Last night I spoke to my sometimes political mentor, Deputy Mary Harney, and she said all change was incremental, that we must bring society with us. Senator McDonald mentioned that we could not move from what was awful to what was perfect in one fell swoop. That is why we need to bring society with us and provide for incremental change. That is one of the reasons I will support the Bill. It will bring us part of the way, but there are gaps in terms of the rights of children which these need to be addressed. I accept the Minister's point that he does not necessarily want to deal with them in this Bill, but they need to be addressed sooner rather than later. We tend to frame laws that are somewhat unequal. I do not think any of us can stand proudly over this. We are, however, travelling a long way down the road in providing the supporting legal framework for persons in same-sex relationships. There is currently no such protection in law. It may not get the support it got in the other House, in Cabinet and the support I imagine it will enjoy here. We cannot stop at that. That we have gone most of the way to provide for equality should not mean we forget about it and put it at the bottom of the pile.

Senator Norris's contribution was interesting. My dilemma is that we must provide for equality but, as the Minister said, we must also ensure it is permissible under the Constitution. We have a very outdated notion of what the family is and, as the Minister said, if we need to change the Constitution, that is another day's argument. The contributions today have demonstrated that we need to change the Constitution on this issue in particular. Senator Norris said that in the 1960s Mr. Declan Costello said the Constitution was open to interpretation because it did not state that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was assumed that was the case because in 1967, we would never have imagined that a family could comprise two people of the same sex. However, as we know, that is what some families comprise. We need to recognise the changed environment in which we live and the not ideal, or the very varied, circumstances into which children are born and reared. They all deserve equal treatment before the law and that must be our most important function as legislators.

The Minister said the Constitution states we are all equal before the law. We should all be equal before the law but this Bill falls a little short in terms of providing that everybody is equal before the law. The status of the family needs to be protected and this is where the Minister had a dilemma, that is, in trying to frame legislation which would allow people to be equal before the law and yet protect the status of the family. The Minister should correct me if I misunderstood what he said but I believe that is accurate.

That shows there is a major flaw in our Constitution. The rights of an individual should not be compromised because of the particular status that the family enjoys. We need desperately to do much work updating the Constitution. We would have an easier time passing equality laws if the Constitution was updated somewhat.

I wish to address points Senator Mullen made. He is a very persuasive and good debater and he made cogent arguments about his conscience clause. I heard the Minister address that very well in the Dáil last week. What I objected to slightly in Senator Mullen's contribution was that he bent over backwards trying to look for status for the conscience clause and to ensure people have their consciences protected. He is fundamentally missing the point that he is denying equality of rights. He is overlooking that this Bill seeks to provide equality and is rather more exercised about having a conscience clause rather than dealing with the fundamental issue.

I look forward to the debate on the issue of cohabiting relationships on Committee Stage. The Minister said the Bill provides for nothing other than the right to go to court. I object slightly to this because we do not need the State interfering in relationships in any shape or form. Marriage is one thing, although a four or five year cohabiting relationship is not necessarily causal. I do not see the point of going down this road. I look forward to the debate which will take place.

There is a proposal in the Bill in regard to signing an opt-out clause. If you and your partner are about to acquire rights, entitlements or the right to go to court and one tries to get one's partner to opt out of that, it is a sure sign the relationship will come to a conclusion very swiftly. I agree with the fundamental issue that this Bill takes nothing from anybody's rights but merely seeks to provide equality for people.