David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to a House with which she is very familiar, being a former Leader of the Opposition, and thank her for her gracious acknowledgement of the role I played. I have found the references to myself a little embarrassing, but I accept the accolade quite seriously on behalf of the very many people who during the years, in an unacknowledged way, have played a crucial and important role in this struggle for more than 40 years. When I started off, it was a world of hatred, contempt and silence, in which gay people were regarded as sources of sin, crime and disease. Everything was clouded completely in silence. A wonderful transformation has been happening for many years, but it really flowered in the marriage equality referendum. I have heard so many moving stories of young people all over the island who have been given the courage, for the first time, to face the reality of their sexuality, to come out and declare themselves and live their lives. The impact on young people has been one of the most significant elements of the campaign and this legislation.

I pay tribute not just to the Minister but also to the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore. He was the person who really put this issue on the agenda, for which I thank him, but, most particularly, I thank the people of Ireland because it was our co-citizens who voted it through in the referendum in overwhelming numbers. The gay community simply could not have done it on their own. I was moved, in particular, by the many young people, both gay and straight, who came home from abroad to vote in support of their co-citizens. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I also express my gratitude to the Taoiseach, a conservative man from a rural constituency, who was convinced by the arguments and changed his mind. That was remarkable. I pay tribute to the late Noel Browne, my great friend, the first person in either House of the Oireachtas to raise the question of homosexuality but who was laughed out of the Lower House, and to Ivor Browne, a great psychologist.Returning to the Minister's speech, while I thank her for her kind and gracious comments, which leave me slightly embarrassed, I cannot be as gracious as her when it comes to those involved in the "No" campaign. They were awful. I am not a bit diplomatic or political: they were ghastly. Yes, there were people who were conscientious and I respect them but I do not respect the people who treated the independent assessor with contempt, who defied the truth, who told lies, who put up indecent posters everywhere, who blackguarded people and shouted people down in debates. I am not having any of that and I am not changing the record. That is the way they behaved and that is the way I am going to call it in this House and anywhere else. I am sorry I am not gracious, even though I recognise that homosexuality seems to have an extraordinarily calming effect on political parties. There is unanimity in the House today on the question of gay rights.

I was pleased that Senator Bacik spoke on the subject of the Bill and not only the emotion surrounding it. I would like to do likewise. Again, I am not politically correct. I wonder how appropriate consanguinity and affinity are for gay couples. It would not take a feather out of me if two cousins married each other. What is the problem with that? The affinity and consanguinity regulations were introduced as a measure to protect the genetic pool. The genetic pool will remain relatively untroubled by same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is gone. There is no longer "gay marriage" and that is great: there is just marriage. It is all just "marriage" from now on. That is great. While I am a little concerned about the consanguinity and affinity issue I do not propose to table an amendment on the matter. I do not see any reason cousins who wish to marry each other should not be allowed to do so. It would not bother me. I do not think the public good is disturbed in any way by it. As I said, I do not propose to table an amendment on the matter but I expect I will be pilloried by somebody from the grotesque Irish media for my remarks in this regard. However, I tell the truth as I see it.

Section 7(1)(a) deals with religious solemnisers and so on. I agree that churches should not be told what to do but I do not see any reason a priest or minister of religion in good conscience should not marry somebody. Why should they be prevented from doing so? That is interfering in the regulations of the church. I think church and state should be separate. If a priest or a minister wants to marry a couple he or she should be able to do so.

There is a more important point, a practical point, on which I do propose to table an amendment. I hope the Minister will be able to accept it. I hope this is not another of those situations where everything is done and dusted, such that the Lower House will not be bothered to accept it. I genuinely think this Bill should have been introduced in this House because the debate on this issue, in a political sense, was commenced in this House following the introduction here in 2004 by myself and Senator Bacik of the Civil Partnership Bill. I am seeking to have section 81(e) of the Pensions Act 1990 amended to address the following situation. Many people who are now retired were circulated with a memo from the Department of Finance many years prior to their retirement in regard to the inclusion of their spouses in their pension scheme to which gay people, because they did not have wives or husbands, had to respond "No". The Department of Finance is now mean-mindedly using this to deprive people of their financial rights. That is grotesque, wrong and mean-minded. It is penny pinching because the amount involved is quite small. I propose to table an amendment to provide that where a delay by a complainant in referring a case under this section is due to any misrepresentation by the respondents or to a material change in the rules of the pension scheme, subsection (5) shall be construed as if the reference in it to the date of termination of relevant employment were a reference to the date on which the fact of misrepresentation or material change of the rules of the pension scheme came to the complainant's notice. I appeal to the Minister to take this into consideration. I also have concerns about people in America who were involved in a civil partnership and are now married and are having difficulties at customs, which I will elaborate on on Committee Stage.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this legislation is long awaited. I recall 30 years ago after a debate in Trinity College the late Mina Bean Uí Chroibín saying to me that what we wanted was not just changes in the criminal law but to push the homosexual agenda, including the introduction of homosexual marriage. My response to her was that that was a wonderful idea and I would make a note of it. I also asked her if she had any more suggestions, which left her rather discomfited.