Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I compliment Senators Walsh, Ó Murchú and Hanafin on tabling their amendment. Senator Quinn and I have tabled an amendment along similar lines. It appears for the first time at the definition stage. We propose that on page 16, line 37, we delete the words "civil status" and substitute them with the phrase "marital or civil status" which would encompass the range of possibilities, including single, married, separated, divorced and so on and that elsewhere in the Bill, where the words "civil status" appear and in the Acts to be amended by this Bill, the phrase "marital or civil status" would appear.

Recently, I took part in a debate on the constitutional referendum on children. One of the points I made was that the opening line in the proposed amendment that came from the Oireachtas joint committee was that the State would cherish all the children of the State equally. I regarded that as being rather sloppily drafted and rather uncertain in its meaning, both now and in the context of future interpretation by the courts.

One can say that sometimes when one starts out with a change of terminology or phrase in important legislation or in constitutional provisions, it is a bit like a ship changing course ever so slightly. It does not seem to make much difference at the outset of the journey but it can make a hell of a difference at the point of destination.

This amendment may look like it is symbolic. In many ways, it is in the sense that it does not touch on the fundamental definition of civil partnership or the question of whether we should generously encompass other caring dependent relationships or whether we should provide for people's legitimate disagreements and conscience around certain issues. It does not deal with any of those practical and portentous issues which surface in the Bill but, none the less, it could have a huge impact in terms of the ongoing shaping of our culture, of which all our legislation is part.

Everyone has a marital status, whether single, divorced, separated, married or whatever. The point is that in the future, they will not have a marital status but a civil status. That may not seem to make a whole pile of difference to many people. I accept that, at some level, it may seem to be a symbolic change. However, the whole underlying approach to the drafting and shaping of this Bill has sought to insist at all times that marriage continues to be special, different and privileged by our Constitution and respected in our laws in harmony with the Constitution. The logic of that is that we should not change people's marital status to the civil status simpliciter. If anything, the phrase "marital or civil status" envisages a certain compromise in that it recognises that there is now for the first time a new kind of State-sponsored, State-recognised partnership between people.

For example, one could argue that civil partnership is a marital status of the non-marital kind of partnership but it makes some sense to maintain the special nature of marriage in the house and at front of house. This is one of those front of house amendments. It is about what we call things, how we name things and, ultimately, how we see things. For that reason, we should keep marriage and the concept of marriage as a cherished institution in our society - I suppose it is the most cherished of all - front and centre at all times. Therefore, our language and that of our Constitution, legislation and forms, whether applications for goods or services, should reflect the special status we give to marriage. It is on that basis I propose these amendments but I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about my colleagues' alternative amendments.