David Norris (Independent)

I consider that we are very lucky to have someone of the standing of Senator Zappone to make the detailed, considered, thoughtful and authoritative statement on this matter. I support every word she said and amplify it slightly.

The first point is with regard to constitutionality. That is simply a ruse, and everybody knows that. The Law Reform Commission took advice on that and it was advised by eminent counsel that there was no difficulty about introducing the full range of marriage unless the new institutions, right up to the level of marriage, purported to give greater rights. Giving equal rights did not; that was the opinion of learned counsel.

Second, the Minister's own late distinguished colleague, Declan Costello, pointed out in 1967 that the wording of the Constitution clearly left it open to the introduction of marriage between persons of the same sex. I am quoting one of the most eminent members of the Minister's own party on that. Those two references on their own should at least open up a discussion on this matter.

With regard to the undermining of marriage, it was a laughable argument because surely the best allies that marriage could possibly have are people who want to commit themselves. I refer the Minister to what I said during the debate on the civil partnership Bill, and it was not just uninformed opinion of my own but reports of various governments in the Scandinavian region, particularly the Swedish Parliament, which commissioned academic research into this area. It discovered that this was a helpful direction in which to go. It was unusually conservative at the beginning. In the aftermath of the measures it passed in the Parliament, it was discovered there was actually an increase in marriage. This is because heterosexual couples within a certain social circle who saw their same-sex couple friends getting married actually believed it would be a good idea to get married themselves. Not only does same-sex marriage not undermine marriage, it actually supports it and leads to an increase in the incidence thereof. These are not my opinions but facts, and they should be treated as such.

The Civil Partnership Bill was a considerable advance and for that reason I reluctantly supported it, despite its deeply offensive and most unhelpful language. For example, in references to the domestic arrangements of people in civil partnerships, a distinction was drawn between persons of different sexes and persons of the same sex in references to the place in which they lived. In the case of same-sex couples, the residence was described merely as a shared home or shared accommodation whereas it was described as the family home in reference to people of opposite sexes, even those in civil partnerships. That is grossly offensive to gay people. No consideration whatever was given to the welfare of children. I would have believed, given the history of child abuse by both the religious and State institutions, that any Government would be very careful not to continue the abuse of children achieved by the legislation. I looked to the Government to amend it.

There seems to be a block with regard to retrospection. I raised this on many occasions in this House. In this regard, consider the circumstances of people I know who are now in recognised civil partnerships or at least in partly recognised civil partnerships - there seems to be a lot of confusion about this. One couple got married in the British embassy in Dublin but there appears to be no retrospection in terms of their pension arrangements. This is an unjust discrimination.

Let me draw attention again to the remarkable and wonderful words made by Máire Geoghegan-Quinn as Minister for Justice when mean-minded amendments were introduced by the then Opposition in order to humiliate gay people and put in place a discriminatory age of consent. She said - this is the golden mean - that she would require clear, factual and cogent reasons to introduce any measure of discrimination against an Irish citizen, and that since none had been provided, she would not accept the amendments. That is a very important statement because it relates not only to the infringement of the rights of gay citizens in this country, but also to every area of discrimination. No Irish Minister should accept a measure of discrimination unless clear, cogent and factual reasons have been produced. I do not refer to financial reasons, moral objections of one kind or another or personal ideas but to clear, cogent and factual reasons. For that reason, I have great pleasure in supporting the recommendation tabled by Senator Zappone.