Private Members Motion on Civil Marriage - 27th February 2008

Private Members Motion on Civil Marriage - 27th February 2008

Senator David Norris: I move:
That Seanad E´ ireann, acting upon the principles
enunciated on behalf of the then Fı´anna
Fail/Labour Coalition Government in 1993
during the debate surrounding the decriminalisation
of male homosexuality, in which the
then Minister for Justice indicated that clear
factual and cogent arguments rather than
prejudice would be required to support discrimination
in law against any Irish citizen, and
in the light of the reports of various think tanks
and Commissions but most particularly the
Colley Report, urges the Government at last to
introduce full equality under the law for gay
citizens of Ireland including access to civil
marriage.
I welcome the Minister, although I do not welcome
his rather flabby amendment. Private
Members’ time is one of the most important times
in our parliamentary calendar. We all take it very
seriously, despite the fact due to the lateness of
the day, very often it is not covered at all, and
we try to raise serious issues. I wanted to raise a
number of issues, including cystic fibrosis, which
was taken by Senator De Bu´ rca. She received a
surprisingly comprehensive reply and I felt it
would be wrong to expand on that. I then wanted
to raise the questions of extraordinary rendition
and the Civil Partnership Bill 2004, which I had
tabled. However, I withdrew it on 13 February to
show my revulsion at the attitude of the Government
parties and the fact that they had so clearly
dragged their heels on this important issue. My
Bill was before the House for approximately four
years and nothing was done. Had the Government
acted at the time it would have been generous.
There might have been a streak of the prophetic
and the visionary but all that has drained
away. We are getting reform by dribs and dribs in
a mean spirited, mean minded, legalistic, cheese
paring way and it is not good enough. I will not
tolerate the stuff we got from former Senator
Mansergh in the past, attempting to dilute recognition
of gay people’s relationships to remove
from them any sense of celebration, public
endorsement and respect. I will not take that any
more and I will not be a second class citizen in
this country in a manner which I am clearly
defined. I will not accept such dilution.
The motion was tabled with great seriousness
in light of the principles enunciated by Maire
Geoghegan-Quinn in 1993 when, in a marvellous
moment, she said clearly that, as a Minister, she
would require clear, cogent and practical reasons
to discriminate against an Irish citizen and in light
of the Taoiseach’s statement in 2006 that:
Our sexual orientation is not an incidental
attribute. It is an essential part of who and
what we are. All citizens, regardless of sexual
orientation, stand equal in the eyes of the
law. Sexual orientation cannot and must not
be the basis of a second class citizenship. Our
laws have changed and will continue to
change to reflect this principle.
Would that his words were true but they were
not and we are not equal. We are being given, at
best, second-class citizenship. Those who oppose
this say they are defending marriage but they are
not. They are, in a mean spirited way, defending
what they see as their entitlement to superiority
and they are doing it in precisely the same way
those arrogant members of the former Protestant
ascendancy in this country defended their privilege
against Daniel O’Connell who made the
effective point that human liberty is not a finite
resource that is diminished by being extended to
other people but, instead, is enriched, enhanced
and increased by being extended.
The Government parties compliment themselves
in their amendment on the Criminal Law
(Sexual Offences) Act 1993. I had something to
do with that when I had to drag the Government
to Europe to get it. It took four years before anything
was done. I recall the then Taoiseach,
Albert Reynolds, a decent man, being questioned
about it and replying it was not a priority. What
was held to be a serious violation of fundamental
human rights is not a priority when it affects gay
people. The amendment refers to the Unfair Dismissals
Acts and dismissal being unfair on the
ground of sexual orientation. That is my sexual
Refugee Act 1996. The Government can claim
credit only for parachuting in on the work that
was done. Astonishingly, reference is made to the
Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007, and the
Equal Status Act 2000. I cannot believe I am
reading this. These are the Acts from which gay
people in a profession to which many of them are
drawn are specifically excluded, despite the overwhelming
evidence of the Ferns report. We also
know that because of the exemptions sought by
and given to the churches, they have the right to
dismiss people from their jobs as teachers on the
ground of their sexual orientation. For that
reason, young people are subjected to homophobic
bullying in the area of education. In 80% of
bullying cases a homophobic element is involved
and in 80% teachers do nothing about it because
this Act makes them afraid. It is curious, therefore,
to see it in the amendment.
The Health Insurance Act is the first score for
the Government and well done on that. The
European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated,
including the issue of incompatibility
certificates — Lydia Foy received the first of
these the other day — but the Government was
required to incorporate it. Well done too on the
Parental Leave Act, which represents a small
step. The Government amendment then notes
that legislation to conform must be fully consistent
with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
However, the Constitution does not define
marriage as between a man and a woman.
Deputy Brian Lenihan: The High Court
settled that.
Senator David Norris: Declan Costello pointed
out in 1967 that the Constitution is an organic and
developing document. The United Nations
defines “family” in a variety of ways that are not
confined to this group. With regard to the Constitution,
the Law Reform Commission sought and
obtained opinion to the effect that the only way
constitutionality could be challenged would be
through legislation which purported to give
greater rights to the new institution than to marriage.
I am aware the Attorney General gave a
different view but Attorneys General by their
very nature have to be cautious in their advice. It
would be easy to address this situation and I
invite the Minister to do so. A simple tweak to
the Civil Registration Act would introduce civil
marriage.
The tenth report of the Oireachtas Committee
on the Constitution was splendid. The Colley
report recommended civil marriage as the best
option because it advised that the status of gay
people would otherwise be further eroded. The
report of the former North Eastern Health Board
showed the significant damage done to health and
well-being by the lack of status for gay people,
including increases in suicides and psychiatric illnesses.
The report stated these effects did not
come from their sexuality but from the kind of
attitudes expressed in opposing the measures we
are discussing today.
A lot of nonsense is spoken about the history
of marriage as if it was a permanent institution,
unlike the Constitution which is organic and
developing. It was not until 1754 that marriage
was regulated in this country. Until then, marriage
was recognised on the basis of an exchange
of vows. By the 1920s, according to the Conscience
— the News Journal of Catholic Opinion,
the definition of marriage in America was narrowed
to forbid interracial marriages. During the
same period, the drawbacks to not being married
increased.
The number of cohabiting couples in the 2006
census was 121,000, or double the number of four
years earlier. This figure included more than
2,000 gay couples but that is a serious underestimate
because gay people tend not to report this
arrangement.
I emphasise that I am not seeking religious
marriage. This is strictly a civil marriage issue.
However, the work of an internationally
renowned historian and social commentator, the
late Professor John Boswell, reveals that the early
Christian church enacted rituals for the blessing
of same sex unions. That has been neatly obliterated
from the history of western Christianity.
In regard to the attitudes of Irish people, at
least 41% are strongly in favour and a survey
carried in the Irish Examiner of 21 February 2006
revealed that 51% of the population favoured gay
marriage or unions.
Same sex marriage was introduced in the
Netherlands under that country’s marriage act of
2001, while in Belgium it was introduced in 2003.
Same sex marriage became legal in Canada on 20
July 2005. That is interesting to Ireland because
of the Zappone and Gilligan case. In holy
Catholic Spain, same sex marriage was introduced
on 3 July 2005. The High Court of Israel
issued a ruling recognising same sex marriage on
the basis of an action taken by people who had
been married in Canada. That is an interesting
precedent for this country. In the United States
of America, Massachusetts has allowed full marriage
equality since 18 November 2003. One of
the original sponsors of an amendment to ban gay
marriage and legalised civil unions, Brian Lees,
stated, “gay marriage has begun and life has not
changed for the citizens of the commonwealth”.
It is therefore not the disaster people pretended
it would be. In Northern Ireland, civil partnership
is allowed with ceremonies performed by marriage
registrars. As I noted earlier, there is more
freedom for people like me in Paisley’s Belfast
then in Bertie’s Dublin. That is a significant
reproach.
People suffer from a range of disadvantages at
present, including in the area of immigration.
People who in previous years had to leave this
country formed relationships abroad, some of
which were recognised, and they have now
returned. The last time I discussed this issue, I
brought into the House five folders containing
these agonising stories. My secretary had to help
me carry them. At the conclusion of this debate
I will put the human face on this material.
A letter from a psychiatrist to yesterday’s The
Irish Times suggested some kind of negative
impact on children. The American Academy of
Pedriatics states there is no data to suggest that
children who have gay or lesbian parents are
different in any aspect of psychological, social or
sexual development to children in heterosexual
families. The American Psychological Association
states:
. . . there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian
women or gay men are unfit to be parents
or that psychosocial development among children
of lesbian women or gay men is compromised
relative to that among offspring of heterosexual
parents . . . Not a single study has
found children of lesbian or gay parents to be
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative
to children of heterosexual parents.
Studies by the Australian Psychological Society
comparing groups of children raised by homosexual
and heterosexual parents found no developmental
difference between the groups. The Canadian
Psychological Association states:
There is a popular misconception that gay
and lesbian parents, because of their sexual
orientation, compromise the psychological and
sexual development of their children . . . Psychosocial
research into lesbian and gay
parenting indicates that there is no basis in the
scientific literature for this perception.
I will list other organisations and return to them
in my concluding speech: The Royal College of
Psychiatrists; the National Association of Social
Workers; and the American Psychiatric Association.
That should put that canard to rest, notwithstanding
the discrimination that exists against
gay people.

Senator David Norris: Having listened to this
civilised and important debate, I am glad I put
down this motion. There seems to be a type of
zeitgeist at play, with the Gilligan-Zappone case
and the work done by the Gay and Lesbian
Equality Network, GLEN. I honour the work
done by all these people. It was pure fluke that
the briefing to which I referred took place today.
It was interesting that only two Senators spoke
in favour of discrimination and against equality,
neither of whom materialised at that briefing.
Their absence was regrettable because we all
have much to learn from each other.
I agree completely with what Senator Alex
White said. It is time to have courage. I do not
want to smuggle something in under the carpet
without discussion with the people. Let us have
that discussion; I will be delighted to campaign
for change. We must have the courage to put the
proposal to the people. I guarantee we will win.
Senators O´ Murchu´ and Mary White are absolutely
right that if this change had been initiated
four years ago, when I first put forward the Bill,
I would have welcomed it as prophetic and visionary.
Now, however, change is coming in dribs and
drabs, parsimoniously, and there is no vision. The
problem is that what is proposed does not represent
equality. With the greatest respect,
equality is not what Senator Mullen thinks it is
when he proposes to share time equally, as he
said, with Senator O’Toole but proceeds to speak
for the full eight minutes, thus denying Senator
O’Toole the opportunity to speak. If that is his
notion of equality, I am not surprised he took the
view he did. He dismissed every major international
and reputable authority and report. I will
not list them all again but if they do not convince
him, it is a case of what might be described in
theological terms as invincible ignorance. I
cannot help him.
I know what equality is. Equality is 2+3=5 and
not just in those cases where “2” is a man and “3”
is a woman. If both are men or both are women, it
is still five, not four and a half or four
and three quarters. That is not
equality. Even I know enough arithmetic
to know that is the case. It is a cause for
concern. That is why I am glad that we got
through today. There will be a vote. The
members of the Government parties will vote not
in favour of my proposal but clearly in favour of
civil partnership. That is an advance. We have
done that, at least, by raising the bar. I would like
the Minister of State to bring back to his Cabinet
colleagues a request for us to be given details of
the timing of this move.
I am glad that Margaret Gill, who gave a
remarkable performance on “Prime Time”, was
mentioned. Mrs. Gill is from Edenderry, County
Offaly, which is the heart of Ireland. I am proud
to say that my family also comes from the bogs
of Ireland, which is the real Ireland. The woman
in question expressed her concern for her grandchild.
There is clear evidence that the love of a
parent for his or her child — the parent’s capacity
to give love to the child to help him or her to
grow — is central to good parenting. It was
interesting that neither of the Senators who spoke
against equality mentioned the word “love”,
which is what we want. As gay people, we are
entitled to celebrate our sexuality. We do not
want it to be neutered.
I agree with Senator O´ Murchu´ ’s point that siblings
must be looked after. However, we should
not neuter the relationships between gay people.
They should be entitled to celebrate joyfully their
sexual union, express their pleasure and show
their commitment to each other. It astonishes me
that those very voices who used to complain
about promiscuity in the gay community are now
belly-aching because gay people are emphasising
the importance of commitment. Such logic confuses
me. Gay people were committed to each
other during those evil days when homosexuality
was a major criminal offence. I have been to 20th,
25th and 30th anniversary celebrations in the past
year. The 25th anniversary celebration honoured
my successor in the National Gay Federation,
Eamonn, and his companion, Toma´ s. I was at a
wedding in the Unitarian Church of a couple who
have been known to me for many years. They
lived together for five years before they were able
to get married. I honour the clergyman who performed
the ceremony. I do not see any reason
priests should not give blessings. I have seen
priests of various denominations blessing war
planes, bombs, ploughs and goldfish. I do not
know how the priest who blessed the goldfish
knew they were not lesbian — with goldfish, it is
extremely difficult to tell. We need to look
beyond these things.
I urge all Members of the House to read the
briefing prepared by the Gay and Lesbian
Equality Network, which lists the technical disadvantages
faced by gay couples in areas like tax,
inheritance and the giving of evidence. I honour
the representatives of MarriagEquality. I have
thrown myself behind what they have to say.
Having mentioned Margaret Gill, I would like to
mention some other wonderful people. I encourage
Senators to read the article written by Terry
Prone in the Irish Examiner of Monday, 18
February last. Ms Prone wrote about a wonderful,
talented and committed person with whom she
worked. It is only at the end of the article that
one realises it is about a woman who is in a
relationship with another woman. The final lines
of the article read:
I still hope to attend a wedding in the not
too distant future. Of my gay friend. The girl
who designed a calendar in memory of her
mother.
It is a tribute to love, as is a marvellous article by
Ro´ isı´n Ingle in The Irish Times about Orla
Howard, her partner Gra´inne and Gra´ inne’s
daughters. The article states:
Seventeen-year-old Clare O’Connell knew
exactly the message she wanted to get across to
her local TDs when she and her family met
them to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage
in Leinster House earlier this week. We go to
school and play basketball and listen to music.
We eat pasta and do our homework. It’s not
radical, we don’t live in a hippy commune and
the only difference is that we have two women
as parents. I just want to know whether the
politicians think it’s right that my Mum and her
partner are not allowed to get married. I just
want them to see that our family is normal,
almost boring, really.
The photograph that accompanied the article
shows us that the two girls are lovely. It is clearly
a happy, joyful, good and wholesome family. The
final lines of the article read:
“I think people are afraid of the unknown”,
says Clare, while Daire says that living with two
women as parents has made her and her sister
very open-minded. “There are people around
the country who might never have even met a
gay person and so they might have concerns
about us having gay parents, but look at me
and Daire, we are not that bad are we?” Not
bad at all.
Those who think they have never met a gay person
can take it from me that they have. Every
Member of this House has a gay member of his
or her family. A Member of the other House who
used to regularly rail against gay people
approached me in the car park of Leinster House
approximately two years ago to tell me that his
son had told him he was gay. When I asked the
Deputy what he had said to his son, he told me
he had said, “I love you. You are my son and you
will always be my son. You will always have my
love”. I think that was the right thing to say. Is it
not extraordinary how things can come home to
roost in such a manner?
It is important that I refer to the American
Psychiatric Association’s statement which states:
No research has shown that the children
raised by lesbians and gay men are less well
adjusted than those reared within heterosexual
relationships. As the population ages, the
denial of legal recognition of civil marriage has
consequences for increasing numbers of older
adults in same-sex relationships who face agerelated
health and financial concerns. Excluding
these adults from civil marriage protections
of survivorship and inheritance rights, financial
benefits, and legal recognition as a couple in
health care settings increases the psychological
burden associated with aging. The American
Psychiatric Association has historically supported
equity, parity, and non-discrimination in
matters that have an impact on mental health.
APA has also supported same-sex civil unions
and the right of same-sex couples to adopt and
co-parent children.
I accept that I may have been slightly shrill and
emotional earlier in this debate. I said that some
people are mean-minded and I do not take a
word of it back. The contribution made by my
friend, Senator Walsh, was a classic example of
what I am talking about. Is it not mean-minded
to say we cannot give tax equality to homosexuals
because it would cost money? Darling, I pay taxes
too. If fairies were exempt from paying tax, I
would forget about marriage. If the Government
gets rid of income tax for gay people, I will accept
Senator Walsh’s position on this issue. With
respect, I will not take any guff from him until he
does that.
Senators: Hear, hear.