Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, with great respect, and I know we do respect each other, in his lengthy explanation of the amendment said he is trying to do this in a minimalist fashion - minimum, short, succinct - in order to put the issue beyond doubt. I am not sure what that issue is. I shall respond by making a couple of points on what I understand to be a minimalist approach to this issue.

As I listened to Senator Mullen's lengthy explanation, I tried to understand the logic of what he was putting forward, because I know we were both trained in logic. I believe the nub of his concern is that, if this amendment is not accepted, what the Government is doing would raise the validity of marriages taking place in regard to religious solemnising. He is also arguing that if we do not have this amendment, the Bill would be interfering with religious organisations regarding their understanding of marriage as distinct from the legislation for civil marriage. He is basing these very significant charges in regard to the Bill on the basis that the Government wants to add "spouse" along with "husband and wife". However, as the word "spouse" can mean "wife" and can mean "husband", there is no material difference in terms of the definition. I do not understand how that inclusion of "spouse" can place such a burden of raising the validity of the marriages previous to the ones that might take place now, as well as interfering with religious organisations in terms of their religious understanding of marriage.