Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Speaking as one of the relatively few representatives of the 38% who voted "No" to this referendum, most of whom, strangely enough, are not senile or tottering into the grave and include many young people who spoke to me before, during and after the referendum, it is certainly not my intention to engage in any kind of ditherum this afternoon because the people decided the issue about the definition of marriage and I do not want to reopen that debate in the amendments I would propose on Committee Stage because my concerns in respect of this legislation lie elsewhere. There are certain problems with the Bill and they relate to what was not an issue during the campaign, namely, the question of the right of religious bodies and solemnisers to celebrate marriage according to the traditions and beliefs of those bodies and to continue in their civil role as solemnisers of marriages that take place in the context of church weddings.

In respect of the substantive issue of the new definition of marriage in our country, I would like to recall some words I uttered in the RDS as the votes were being counted on 23 May. Our country divided 62% to 38% on the proposal to change the marriage in our society but we were not, I hope, divided with regard to how we feel about gay people. As I have said and believed, every human being has equal dignity and deserves equal respect. We all were and, I hope, remain committed to that. The "No" campaign was concerned about the profound effects of redefining marriage and in particular, about the consequences of some children who would be less likely to experience the love of a father and a mother in their lives in the event of a "Yes" vote. That concern was well explained by us. It was real and it remains justified. While I recognise that a clear majority of Irish people were not swayed by our concerns, that does not mean that "Yes" voters did not share them to any extent. I believe people chose primarily to send a message of affirmation and equal respect to gay people. That was their priority and I respect it. The challenge that opponents of the referendum faced was to try to communicate an important social value against a background of a media campaign of at least five years. While we did well in the current affairs debates, we had neither the financial resources nor the cultural support in the media and the Irish establishment to reach hundreds of thousands of other people for whom this referendum was only ever about how we feel about the gay people that we know and love. I mentioned the fact that the media coverage was entirely one-sided and I am still concerned about the fact that a crazy amount of overseas money from at least one US foundation poured into groups on the "Yes" side in recent years. I still believe that, for the sake of our democracy, we need to have a public reflection on how that happened and its implications for law and policy in Ireland.

We now need to attend to the continuing issue exposed by us during the campaign regarding children's rights in our society, not just the right to life, which is very important, but the right to have a father and mother in one's life whenever possible. My concern in welcoming the Minister today is that I believe the legislation she has put before us is very flawed and poorly drafted. In light of her comments earlier and those she made in the Dáil and prior to the referendum in respect of the role of religious bodies in solemnising civil marriages as part of church weddings, I am surprised to discover that the office of an tArd-Chláraitheoir might have discretion and even be obliged to exclude religious bodies from a role in civil marriage unless they change their current form of ceremony. I have examined this matter very carefully and taken legal advice on it. I understand the Minister has received representations on it as well. I do not know if it is a conspiracy or a cock up but the Bill as it stands is flawed and poorly drafted. It changes the effect of section 51(3)(b) and section 51(4) of the Civil Registration Act 2004. It sets up the possibility that religious solemnisers may be refused registration unless a new form of ceremony that contemplates same-sex unions is submitted by them. Alternatively, it is even possible that marriages people think are valid might later be invalidated if the form of ceremony used by the religious body is at some future point deemed to have been inconsistent with the requirements of the legislation. The problem is that the new Bill requires that in all approved forms of marriage ceremony, there be a declaration to the effect that each party "accepts the other as a husband, a wife or a spouse as the case may be." The term "spouse" is used instead of the terms "husband" and "wife" elsewhere in other sections of the Bill but in the crucial section changing the marriage declaration, the acceptance of a spouse is presented as an alternative situation to that of accepting a husband or wife. Logically, this can only mean that the declaration required in all forms, including those used by religious bodies, must be one that contemplates same-sex unions.

The irony is that the Bill purports - I believe the Minister wishes this to be the case - to provide religious bodies with protection for their forms of ceremony. The Bill provides that a religious solemniser may only use a form approved by his or her religious body. It goes further than the Minister says in her speech but the Bill immediately undermines that protection by requiring that the form to be used by the religious body include and be in no way inconsistent with the new declaration described above. In other words, the Minister is creating a situation where the State will say "you may only use your own form of ceremony but your own form of ceremony may fail to meet the requirements of the State."

This Bill, unless amended, establishes a real possibility that the Ard-Chláraitheoir might in the future exercise a discretion or be found to have an obligation to exclude religious solemnisers unless the bodies involved overhaul the wording of their own ceremonies and that is bizarre and unacceptable. I do not know if it is down to bad drafting or an underhand attempt to force religious bodies down the road of solemnising same-sex unions in the future or maybe even to end the civil solemnisation of marriage by certain religious bodies.