Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights share the same understanding of the Family - with a capital "F". Marriage is between men and women, marriage is inextricably linked to family and children and family is the natural and primary unit group in society and therefore demands protection from the State and indeed is guaranteed that protection in the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. Yet, Ireland decided to vote against a UN resolution calling for the convening of a discussion on "the protection of the family". Instead, Ireland co-authored an amendment that greatly diluted the intended resolution by adding at its end the following quotation, "bearing in mind that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist". The factual statement contained in Ireland's amendment is, no doubt, correct. However, as a legal and political statement, the amendment proposed by Ireland is not coherent either with the Irish Constitution as it stands or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, in terms of the respective understandings of the Constitution and the UDHR of the normative interrelationship between marriage, family and society. Consequently, Ireland's vote against the resolution cannot have been motivated by any concern or respect for either Ireland's own constitutional position on the matter or that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The question to which I seek an answer is what motivated the Irish decision to vote against this resolution? I do not wish to believe it was any private ideology of the Minister, for whom I have great respect and who is an open-minded and thinking person, or one of his officials. However, I must ask whether some private ideology or some kind of groupthink was at work? I remind the Government that Ireland's presence at the United Nations is the presence of the Irish State, constituted by our basic law. It is not the presence of either of the governing parties or of their party political manifestoes or of their Ministers. I wish to ascertain whether the vote was dictated by an informal European Union voting alliance. If so, that is wrong because the European Union has no legal competence in the area of marriage and family policy. I wish to note that the official Irish statement made at a panel discussion on the protection of the family last Monday also openly departed from the current constitutional position on marriage and the family. It is time that Members began to examine the position that is being taken up by Irish officials in international fora and testing whether they comply, not with the current ideological preferences of the mainstream media or within Government parties, but with the requirements of Irish law and of the Irish basic law in particular. Can I have some objective rationale from the Government for the position it is taking? My point is until we change the Constitution, the Government has no right to depart either from its spirit or its letter. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming from the Government. While I have great respect personally for the Minister of State, as a Minister from another Department it is unfair to ask him to take an Adjournment matter on this issue. No doubt a response has been prepared for him and while I look forward to hearing it, I would appreciate the opportunity to engage directly with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on this issue in due course.