Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 9 a :

In page 16, to delete lines 37 to 40.

These amendments go to the core of the motivation that has prompted us to relinquish the Whip of our own party, which has been a difficult decision for all three of us. It goes back to comments we have made on the record over a long period about upholding the constitutional position of marriage, specifically for the reason that the constitutional protection is there.

Marriage is not only the foundation stone for the family, but it is also for society. This has been the case for many generations. We need to be extremely careful that we do not jettison an institution that has stood society in good stead for many generations and many centuries. It is a Christian institution, but not only that. No matter what part of the world one visits, the structures of the society and the value system they have within their society emanates from the quality of their family systems. One will be struck by this in many parts of the world, particularly in China, where there is a strong family ethos.

We should remind ourselves that those Christian values have given rights to us. It is fair to say that our human rights in the main flow from those Christian values.

We are proposing to delete the paragraph that defines civil status. We feel that putting civil status in is creating the equivalence between marital status and civil partnership status, to which we object. We have replaced it with what we think is a reasonable amendment, which replaces it with marital status and civil partnership status. I do not want to anticipate the Minister's response, but I hope we will not be reducing the importance of marital status to society down to an issue of administrative convenience.

The child focus of marriage is the main reason - perhaps the only reason - it enjoys the unique constitutional protection that is specified therein. It puts an onus on the State to protect it in unique ways and to give it the necessary financial and other supports in order to maintain it as the priority that it has for society. It follows obviously from this that the State must respect marriage.

We are of the view that this particular amendment, and the change in the wording, is inconsequential for the thrust of the intent of the Bill to bring benefits to civil partnership between people in same sex relationships who commit to each other. However, we think it is very important for the signal that society gets from the Minister, the Government and these legislative Houses. For that reason, we think it is important. It is also fair to say this signal is also being sent to adolescents and we see an importance in that.

I ask that the Minister concede this particular amendment, which does not cause any particular difficulties from the point of view of a genuine distinction, if the intent of this Bill is to recognise clearly the distinction between the marital status and the civil partnership status, and that they are not all left under the same heading of civil status, which insinuates the equivalence we will not and cannot support for reasons I have already outlined.