Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I have said many times since the Bill began in this House and the other House that the Government and the Oireachtas are constrained in how far we can go because of the Constitution. I said many times that there are detailed and distinct differences between what is being proposed in this Bill, namely, civil partnership, and marriage, as Senator Mullen said. While I cannot recall his exact words, the Senator begrudgingly, I think, states that the Government acknowledges this is in the Constitution. It is clear that everything we have done in this regard, and Senator Walsh accepted this, was done in order to craft this legislation to show a clear distinction between marriage and civil partnership. As I said, that may not satisfy people who want full marriage for same-sex couples and it may not satisfy others who feel we are nearly going too far and equating civil partnership with marriage in some instances. That is a matter of opinion. I have on previous occasions and I can again during the discussion on this Bill clearly indicate at least ten if not more clear distinctions between marriage and civil partnership. I do not say that in any victorious way or in any way in which I would suggest that marriage is higher than civil partnership, but obviously it has to be because that is what the Constitution states.

What we are dealing with here is terminology. To date, the discussion has revolved around the change from using the term "marital status" to the overarching term "civil status". This does not in any way constitute a downgrading of marriage in any sense, nor could it, because of the very views we have expressed in regard to the special status of marriage as per the Constitution. As has previously been said, "civil status" means single, married, separated, divorced, widowed, in a civil partnership or being a former civil partner in a civil partnership that has ended by death or being dissolved. Again, I point out it is an overarching term which includes both marital and civil partnership status.

The distinction the Senator is trying to get at is totally unnecessary in that the definition of "civil partnership" includes all of those terms. The Bill extends protection from discrimination to take account of the civil partnership we are creating here - no more, no less. The term "civil status" is being substituted for "marital status" throughout the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000 so that the statutory obligation not to discriminate against a person on the ground that the person is single, married, separated, divorced or widowed is now being extended to prohibit discrimination against a person based on that person being in a registered civil partnership or formally in a registered civil partnership which is being dissolved. While some may quibble with the terminology, I hope they accept it is important if we pass this legislation that we include civil partnership and those other aspects of it in the existing legislation about non-discrimination from an equality point of view. Perhaps Members could clarify this point if it is otherwise.

The term "civil partnership" is substituted for "marital status" throughout the Civil Registration Act 2004 and in that context the change is made for primarily administrative reasons. The separate recording on forms of marital status and civil partnership status would otherwise inevitably lead to the collection of incomplete and misleading information. For example, if we pass this Bill civil partners could be obliged to record themselves on a census form as single under the marital status designation, if we accept the Senator's suggestion, and as civil partners under the civil partnership status. Therefore, they would be designated on the same form as having both states. Should single people record themselves under both states or only under one status which conforms to their particular sexual orientation? While I understand what the Senator is suggesting, if it is merely to try to emphasise the distinction between marriage and civil partnership, that is fair enough, but if it is going to the heart of this issue, which is the extension of discrimination against civil partners if we pass this legislation, I would like to hear that.

A criticism has been levelled that this substitution reduces the status of marriage to one of a list of possibilities. This is not valid since in some places where the term civil status is now proposed to be used, being married is already one of the list of possibilities. Marital status in the relevant enactments includes at least five separate possibilities - single, married, separated, divorced or widowed. For completeness the further categories of being a civil partner or being a former civil partner whose relationship has ended on death or dissolution are being added.

I am not saying Senator Walsh accepts the bona fides of the Government, but he should accept its confirmation that this legislation has been moulded in such a way that we must acknowledge the existing constitutional protections for the family. I have said time and again that until that is changed, we are obliged, as legislators, to comply with the constitutional imperative. I suggest to Senators that they accept the Government statement that any change we are making in this respect is purely for administrative purposes in order to ensure that there will be no duplication and confusion when people are signing forms after the passage of this legislation.