Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to say a couple of words about the debate which has just passed because the Minister took it upon himself to look for a "Yes, Yes" vote. He is clearly twinning these two proposals. He is entitled to do so; I do not object to that.

However, I want to say one thing. Reflecting on what was said in the House in the past hour, I do not understand that the State puts any particular extra value on marriage any more. I do not believe that we are not in the process of making so-called durable relations - whatever they may turn out to be - any way different from marriage in their legal effect or constitutional status. The more I thought about what the Minister had to say, the more convinced I became that he has, as Senator Mullins has said, hollowed out the special position of marriage because nobody can now say with any certainty that there is anything that the Oireachtas can do by way of law which can attack marriage without attacking those other relationships, except perhaps the weird legal possibility that some mad Government in future might try to outlaw marriage and leave us all in durable relationships.I cannot see what is left or why there is an incentive to marry. As the Minister said, it is purely personal, and he pointed to himself when he said it. However, I do not accept the notion that marriage is purely personal or that the motive for marriage is purely personal. I do not believe that a society can regard with indifference whether people make the commitment involved in marriage or do not. The Constitution provides for strong restrictions as to when one marriage can be dissolved and another can be entered into. It states the couple has to be separated for five years and provision has to be made for the children of the marriage. If that is the case in marriage, why is it not the case in a durable relationship? Why is somebody who is party to a durable relationship entitled to leave legally and go on to get married the next day? Where is the special protection for marriage in those circumstances? What is so great about marriage is reduced to a set of obligations which nobody else in society is asked to undertake yet they are all guaranteed the same rights, family rights, whether they are married or not.

The Minister is shaking his head. I challenge him, in the course of this debate, and we will have more debates tomorrow, to come up with special things that marriage, as opposed to durable relationships, will entail from now on. Is the State going to say that this is confined to married people? One example, which may be slightly horrible, is that incest is prohibited to married people. People cannot marry their sisters. Degrees of consanguinity are prohibited for married people. They are not prohibited for durable relationships.

What is actually being protected from now on? What is special about marriage from now on? As Senator Garvey, who is in a single-parent family, says, if we give somebody who is in that position identical entitlements by way of family right as somebody who is married, what are we in fact saying is special about marriage thereafter? I do not hear the answers coming from the Minister's side. I would like to hear tomorrow, because I would like to give him time to think about it. Will the Minister stand up and tell us what it is that the State now regards to be special about marriage. It is a relationship, as I understand it, of mutual obligation between two adults, men or women, or both men or both women since the equality amendment. However, it is one that cannot be dissolved except by going to court. A court cannot dissolve it shortly after it is entered into because there has to be five years of separation and second, the children of it have to be looked after. Why should those obligations not apply to somebody who is drifting out of a non-marital long-term relationship and deciding to marry some other person, walking away from one relationship into another? Why should the obligations not apply? Will the Minister give us some good reasons? He can think about it overnight. What is it about marriage for which the Constitution provides all these special protections and says it can only be dissolved in certain circumstances but it does not matter because you can enter into a relationship and it will have none of those consequences?

A number of Government speakers here this evening supporting the Minister, and others, have said that in their view the taxation system should effectively be the same for a couple who are in a durable relationship as they are for a married couple. I wonder about that, because as I understand it, the Minister is not even confining durable relationships which subtend marriages to sexual relationships at all. Brothers and sisters may be able to qualify. Where is it? If there is a durable relationship between members of a family or good friends or cousins who have looked after each other all their lives, I do not see why they should be discriminated against compared with a married couple.

To go back to the Murphy case, regarding Francis and Mary Murphy, the basis on which tax allowances were doubled and tax bands were doubled was not to do with children as was the case in the O'Meara case today. They did not enter into the equation at all. It was because of the special status of marriage under the Constitution. That is what the Supreme Court decided then. In regard to tax consequences for cohabiting couples, almost inevitably, it would not require a very brainy lawyer to bring a case to the courts arguing that a cohabiting couple wants the same as a married couple, that their circumstances are identical, that they have three children with their partner; that as married couples get double band allowances and their partner lives in the home and looks after the three children, the client wants double the income tax allowances and double the bands in future, as well as double all the allowances for all of the other taxes that may or may not affect them. I want the Minister to tell us that he has thought that through and that that is not going to happen, that such a court case cannot happen and that a Murphy mark II will not take place. If it does take place, and this is the other side of the coin, the motive to marry will be completely undermined.

I will turn now to deal with the 40th amendment and what Ms Justice Denham said. I do not accept the point made by Senator McGreehan in her contribution that she was a privileged woman in some respect. Ms Justice Denham said Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role. Article 41.2 recognises the significant role played by women and mothers in the home. This recognition does not exclude women and mothers from other roles and activities. There is nothing elitist or unrealistic about that. It is the plain truth. The Irish version of the Constitution says that it is women's role in the family, sa teaghlach, that the State recognises as invaluable.

I will end on this point because I will elaborate on it tomorrow. There seems to be an absolute determination on the part of this Government to reduce everybody in society simply to the role of person, to maintain there is no functional distinction between men and women, that they are all equal in every respect and that their roles in society are equal. I do not accept that proposition at all. Men and women are equal in law. I believe men and women are equal as human beings but I do not accept that men's role in society and women's role in society are indistinguishable or that no legal recognition can be given to gender. I blanch when I see a reference in recent legislation to the proposition that we do not refer to women who are pregnant, rather that we speak about persons who are pregnant. What is this agenda to reduce everyone to atomic persons with interchangeable roles and fluid genders? What is it all about?