Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hear the Minister reassuring me that this will not be the case, but I do not see how she can do so, given that on a perfectly logical reading of the wording of the amended legislation, it is possible that it might be so construed - that is, they might be presented with a choice to change their form to make it gender-neutral or step back from being involved in the registration of civil marriages. This is the issue I am raising and is a concern that people have. In other words, there is a possibility that sections 51(4)(b) and 51(3) could be construed to mean any official form of ceremony which does not include a declaration about accepting the other as "a husband, a wife or a spouse, as the case may be" might be invalid for the purposes of solemnising marriage.

I revert to my point that when one states "a husband, a wife or a spouse," each of those things must mean something different. Religious organisations do not use the word "spouse" in their marriage rites, to my knowledge. As for requiring them to include, in an official form of ceremony, "a husband, a wife or a spouse, as the case may be," I reiterate that the form must include and be in no way inconsistent with a declaration to the effect that they take each other as husband, wife or spouse. If it pertained to the individual ceremony, that would be a different thing, but the Minister is requiring them to have a particular form of ceremony, and the presence of the word "include" in section 51(3) means the form of ceremony must be broad. The form of ceremony must be "a husband, a wife or a spouse, as the case may be," and the Bill does not use that "husband, wife or spouse" distinction elsewhere. Therefore, the point is that each of them must mean something different from the other. It appears to me that on a fair reading of this legislation, the Minister is requiring religious organisations in the future to have a form of ceremony for approval by an tArd-Chláraitheoir which is sufficiently broad to encompass a meaning of solemnising a same-sex union as well. This is not something they have at present, and the Minister simply cannot have such crystal ball certainty. I am not proposing a bizarre interpretation of the English language. With the greatest respect, I suggest the Minister is closer to so doing, because the 2004 legislation refers to the form being obliged to include declarations to the effect that the parties to the marriage accept each other as husband and wife, which the Minister has now changed to "a husband, a wife or a spouse, as the case may be."

I am completely ready to believe this was an oversight, but the Minister has created a dubium. The Minister has been approached by the parties most directly involved in these ceremonies with their concerns and I do not know whether she has given the slightest notice to their concerns or has written a letter to them reassuring them that their legal advice is wrong. I simply do not know, because the Minister has not said so. However, it seems to me that if the Minister wished to avoid any possibility that she could be wrong and I could be right, she would do no mischief by accepting my amendment, because it simply provides that the forms of ceremony currently in use shall not be put in issue in the future, which is what she states she wishes to achieve anyway. It is only Thursday; the Minister could get this back to the Dáil and done, signed and sealed by this weekend. I believe the Minister has got the drafting wrong in this regard. Moreover, the fact that an opponent of the referendum is pointing this out to the Minister is not a sufficient reason to reject it. It certainly does not justify some of the patronising comments from the other side of the House.