Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Inasmuch as I fought to get access – Senator Mullen had a different argument in terms of that – it is important that we hear from people who, right now, are excluded from the constitutional definition of the family and excluded from the value. Not only does marriage mean something to me, our Constitution means something to me, as I have no doubt it means something to other people in this House as well.

We have had significant discussion of the issue of a "durable" relationship and the use of that particular term. We want to use that term in a way that allows us to bring other relationships into the protection afforded to the family. I refer to relationships like a one-parent family and cohabitees, whether they have children or not.By this I mean relationships like one-parent families or relationships of cohabitees, whether they have children - relationships as I said previously, that show strength, stability and commitment. Those relationships covered in the definition of "durable relationship" fit in with the vision that Article 41 gives us of what the family actually represents, which is the idea of it being a fundamental unit group of society and of something that is necessary for the basis of social order. Those are the strong, committed relationships that we are seeking to broaden the definition of "family" to. We are not seeking to bring in novel concepts that have never been recognised in Irish law, such as polygamous marriages. Our courts have been very clear on that in the past and that remains the case. However, we are seeking to include those relationships that we know in our everyday lives and those people we know. We see them and think of them as a family in our heads but right now, our Constitution does not recognise them as such. Those relationships within that concept of durability include those parent-child relationships. That is important and that is a different and a broader definition compared to the more narrow approach that is used in the citizenship directive.

A number of Senators raised the issue of the O'Meara case and the judgment today. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak about this. What the O'Meara judgment does most clearly is show that a majority - five of the seven judges of the Supreme Court - clearly state that the concept of marriage, as set out in our Constitution, is the family based on marriage. It is the marital family that is protected by Article 41. They are very clear that they are not going to change this. They are not going to give a reinterpretation. Since it is so current, if the Senators do not mind I want to quote from a provision from paragraph 157 of the judgment, where the Chief Justice said:

The very fact that the Constitution limits the Article 41 Family to marital families, even interpreted as it has been, may give rise to issues of interpretation and application in some cases. Even if it did not have any practical consequence, its terms might still be regarded as significant. What the Constitution says, and the story it tells about our society, is important in and of itself. There may be good reasons to debate what the Constitution should now say, and indeed the Court was informed by the Attorney General in the course of argument, that proposals to amend Article 41 in this regard were under consideration, and proposals are before the Oireachtas as of the date of delivery of this judgment. But, the forum for any debate on what the Constitution shouldsay in this or any other regard is not the Court. There must be a limit to the permissible interpretation of the Constitution, and in my view, and with great respect to those who take a different view, I consider that to decide now that the Article 41 Family can include both marital and non-marital families alike, exceeds it.

The court is clearly stating that it is not going to change the definition of the marital-----