Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit. I would like also to welcome our guests from the Humanist Association of Ireland. I too welcome this Bill and the principle behind it, and I would like to give two reasons for that. I am reminded of the British Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who has gone on record in the past supporting the ongoing establishment of the Church of England. He says that for a particular reason: because he believes that what is good for the majority religious group is also good for the cause of religion generally in Britain. I see this debate in similar terms. I think it was Senator Susan O'Keeffe who said that it strengthens our respect for solemnity. It also strengthens our respect for those important moments in people's lives when we include the legitimate aspirations of people of goodwill who are true to their own philosophies and ethical systems and who want to be part of the process of solemnising important moments for people who share those values and philosophies. It is only fair, in the context of a pluralist society, that we remember that the State has an interest in the solemnising of relationships, particularly marriage but also partnerships. Therefore, it is only because we recognise that the State has a legitimate public and social interest in this that it should not be the sole preserve of religious groups.

I am reminded of the divorce referendum back in 1995. I was one of those people who opposed divorce. Many people at the time opposed it not for religious or dogmatic reasons, but from the perspective of the genuine social good that marriage involves for society and concern about the impact on children, the stability of marriage and so on. Whether one agreed or disagreed with those reasons, the point was that we do not just have to have confessional or dogmatic reasons for advocating a particular point of view. That is often forgotten in our society. We should see marriage - and now civil partnership as well, because the Parliament has voted it in - as a social good and therefore something that different groups should be involved in.

Senator Mooney has raised a legitimate point. I do not think it should simply be a matter of whom the Minister designates. I myself was involved in debates here about charities legislation and I put down a particular amendment at that time to prevent the fraudulent abuse and exploitation of mass cards by people who were unassociated with religious bodies - and, in particular, not associated with the Catholic Church - who were engaged in this trafficking in mass cards for the purpose of making money. At that time, the Government introduced an amendment to the legislation in which the Catholic Church was specifically mentioned, and rightly so, in order to put a stop to the particular abuse that was going on.

I am not convinced there is any particular objection, in principle, to naming the Humanist Association of Ireland in legislation. Other speakers have mentioned the bodies that are currently included. I was thinking about this and I have concerns in this regard. I believe there is a Church of Satan in the world, although I do not know whether it exists in Ireland, and I am not particularly happy about the idea of its being involved in solemnising relationships. That leads us to an important principle. We may not be able to agree about God, but we should always strive to agree about what is good. Senator Bacik, or perhaps Senator O'Keeffe, talked about people who are united by their respect for reason and compassion. Organisations that have a genuine respect for reason and compassion cannot but be good if they are engaged in a genuine search for what is reasonable and compassionate.

I share the perspective of the late Pope John Paul II, who said that faith and reason are the two wings on which the spirit rises to a contemplation of truth. That is my personal philosophy and I value it greatly, but I long for and am happy to have a dialogue with those who have other means of trying to approach what is good and what is true.

In that regard, I welcome the comments of Senator Zappone. I find it a persuasive argument when she says that since civil partnership is legal in this country - I continue to think about this issue - why should religious organisations that have no objection in principle to civil partnership not be involved in the registration of marriages? We could have a useful debate about that. I must be awkward, though, and say that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is interesting to think about why the current situation came about. It is probably that the State, in some sense, in excluding religious organisations from participation in that way, was seeking to somehow co-opt the solemnity that is associated with religious organisations for the ongoing particular respect for marriage that is constitutionally entrenched. However, that of itself is not a sufficient argument.

I recall tabling amendments to the civil partnership legislation in which I sought protections for people's individual consciences in the provision of services associated with civil partnership. We could take those two things together in a mutually respectful way and say that we will respect the rights of different religious groups that have no problem with civil partnership to be involved in its provision, but we will also respect the rights of people who have particular religious or philosophical objections not to be involved, whether it is in the provision of services or some other area, or, if possible, to accommodate registrars who might have an objection, in a way that is consistent with the ability of the apparatus of the State to provide whatever services are involved.

Let us try to surprise people with the alliances we can strike and with our respect for each other. If there is one thing our society needs at the moment, it is a respect for seriousness. We are talking about deep and profound things, and Senator Bacik is absolutely right to introduce this issue; it is in no sense a distraction. These are deep and profound matters which unite people of deep religious conviction but also people of deep philosophical conviction. We should never be afraid to discuss these or to try to find common ground.

Tributes were rightly paid to the tradition of this House in discussing these important issues. I hope I played a modest part myself in introducing Private Members' legislation which sought to protect human embryos from destructive research. Interestingly, that was also an issue that united people of faith with people who had no particular religious faith but who saw the issue through a human rights lens. Let us continue to surprise one another with our seriousness about the dialogue and with our willingness to find common ground where possible.