Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Even if it was, I could hardly be accused of trying to effect a filibuster. I am responding to the Minister and that will be the end of my contribution. If there is a problem with a Bill, it should be more important to deal with that than to meet any particular day's deadline. It is not as though I have only flagged this today.

In her response the Minister did not say whether she had engaged with the bodies that have expressed concerns to her and which have written to the Government citing legal opinion, as far as I know, about the ambiguity in this wording. I did not hear from the Minister as to whether she gave them the time of day. It is wrong and while I know the Minister did not make an issue of my motivations, I am trying to do a job and address a problem. I did so in the context of saying I was not trying to subtract from the effect of the referendum. How could one? The people have spoken and the legislation must be in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution. So it is mean-spirited to be partisan and patronising when a colleague proposes an amendment and tries to give the rationale for it, even if it goes on a little longer than someone's ears are prepared to take. I have never challenged others' right to speak or set out their issues. One should never make fun of them because one does not like the way they do it. I think that demeans the parliamentary process. Even when my friends or people, whose contributions I otherwise admire, do that, I have to call foul on it.

It is not a question of whether religious bodies might be required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; nobody is saying that.My amendment is not grounded in any such fear. The question is whether they will be faced with a choice in the future, which will be to change one's official form of ceremony to a gender-neutral form-----