Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will read into the record of the House the view of One Family Ireland, the national organisation for one-parent families and people sharing parenting or separating. It has come out for a "Yes" vote. I respect its view because it is on the front line. I do not question that there are some ulterior motives behind what they say. They should give guidance and be respected because they are experts who are stakeholders in this area. It has said:

The Family Referendum presents a unique opportunity to end the exclusion of children, parents, and couples in unmarried families from our Constitution and acknowledge their importance. It represents a significant step [forward] towards addressing the injustices faced by single and unmarried parents throughout Irish history, including societal discrimination and institutionalisation. This referendum symbolises reparation and recognition for those who have long been shamed. Through this referendum, the Constitution will extend its protection to various types of families, such as unmarried parents and their children, one-parent families and unmarried couples.

It seems to be put forward by those opposed to the referendum that if we pass this, the family unit will be collaterally attacked or damaged by creating affording people who want to catch up and enjoy some of the same rights which they have been abysmally neglected for so long. We have seen the interpretation of the Bunreacht and hÉireann in operation as recently as yesterday. Many people, including retired Chief Justice, Susan Denham, often refer to the Constitution as a living document. It will live better when we pass these referendums. It will be easier to give guidance. We are duty-bound as legislators to not leave it to the courts but to lead the way. We have a vibrant court but I would say no to putting something in the Constitution that is overly prescriptive and forensic. Yes, some contributors said there will be knock-on consequences both from yesterday's judgment and the outcome of these referendums if they are passed.However, that is no reason to not do them. Those challenges are not insurmountable. They will be challenging but, unfortunately, when it comes to constitutional law in the courts, litigation plays an important role. I hope that when people who are bona fide locus standiand have a proper case, with help and guidance on the finer points, even if the plaintiffs go down in the Supreme Court, they should not be followed for costs by the State. Indeed, there are times when an application for costs for that vital clarification, even if it is in favour of the State when it is delivered, should be an exception to the rule of costs. In conclusion, there is no diminution to the family unit but we are helping tens of thousands of other members of society and giving them some recognition for once. In doing so, we are reflecting our values in terms of equality in a more inclusive and updated way.