Head over to our T
Civil Partnership Bill passing through Dáil Éireann
Read more about: Green Party, Irish Politics, Labour Party 
July 1st, 2010. A momentous day for Ireland, and one that will be remembered in history for a long time to come. Not as momentous as July 7th, 1993 perhaps, but astonishing that we’ve reached this point just 17 years after Mary Robinson signed into law the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Today, July 1st, 2010, Dáil Éireann will pass the Civil Partnership Bill 2009. Once it gets through the Seanad (which will happen, though I suspect it’ll get ugly), same-sex couples will be recognised by the state at last. It’s not marriage, but it’s certainly progress.
I have a long history with this issue, and one I’m particularly proud of. The Labour Party introduced the Civil Unions Bill in 2006. In the few months leading up to that, I was a member of the Labour LGBT executive which decided they were in support of such legislation, and I played a small role in bringing LGBT groups in to discuss the draft legislation with the Labour Party legal advisor, and with Brendan Howlin – the sponsor of the Bill. My role was not enormous – I did not draft the legislation, nor was I centrally involved in persuading Brendan Howlin to work on this area – he took that initiative all by himself. Nevertheless, it is one of my times in politics that I am most proud of, and it was certainly one of the first times that I became aware that Ireland could be made a better place by the actions of a very small number of people.
It’s been a few years since that flurry of activity. In the meantime, the Labour Party have reintroduced our bill twice, only for it to be voted down by the Government. I’ve been involved with both Dublin Pride and the NLGF – both of which have taken staunchly pro-marriage, anti-partnership positions. And yet, I’ve still waited and waited for this day, conscious of the breakthrough which it will come to represent.
I should probably provide some context for my own views. Theoretically, academically, I am opposed to the institution of marriage, and indeed to derivatives of that institution such as Civil Partnerships. It is a patriarchal institution which has been used to subjugate women for hundreds of years. And regardless of the growth of civil marriage, it remains an institution derived from a sacrament in which I do not believe. I believe society should seek to move beyond marriage – to dismantle the rights and responsibilities of that institution, and to recognise that increasing numbers of relationships do not fit within the model of the nuclear family. Some relationships last for a long time, and some do not. Some relationships consist of two people, and some do not. Some relationships involve children, and some do not. And some relationships involve sex, and some do not. One model will never work for all these different types of relationships, and we should consider how rights and responsibilities could be accumulated within relationships as they evolve, rather than being dependent on one ceremony. Theoretically, academically, these are my views.
Emotionally however, I sit in a very different space. As I am yet again experiencing, new romance in my life fills me with emotional possibilities, and the attractions of monogamous, long-term relationships begin to appeal to me once more. But as well as hope such as this, it angers me that society views the relationships of my friends as less than the relationship of my parents. I want queers who want to marry to be allowed to marry. And beyond that, I want them to feel safe walking down the street holding hands. Or to raise their children without judgement.
And so I’m conflicted. I want to make the radical argument against the institution of marriage. But I want the loving relationships I see all around me to receive the respect they deserve. And that can only happen when society embraces empowering structural change.
Tonight will see our society, through the democratically elected representatives of the people, embrace exactly that type of structural change. If Fine Gael come onside, it is possible that as in 1993, all members of Dáil Éireann will come together to take a stand for progress. The Green Party deserve enormous credit. Enormous credit. As the Labour Party were responsible for pushing Máire Geoghegan-Quinn to decrimilaise homosexuality, so the Green Party have taken this fight and forced Fianna Fáil to accept it. Their role should not be undermined, and it will certainly not be forgotten.
In six months time, same-sex couples will be having Civil Partnership ceremonies to rival the most gaudy wedding. Their engagements will become commonplace in the Irish Times. And most of all, society will have shifted to recognising same-sex relationships instead of ignoring them. The campaign for access to civil marriage for same-sex couples will continue, and that’s a good thing. The campaign for same-sex couples to be treated equally in relationship to adoption will certainly gather pace. And some of us will continue to make our arguments for a different way of recognising love. But we’ll all be doing it from a better, more equal starting point.
That’s progress, and it’s been a privilege playing a tiny part in it.
Once it gets through the Seanad (which will happen, though I suspect it’ll get ugly)
Indeed. Expect a little rat representing the NUI to stage some stunt or other, just out of spite.
“It’s not marriage, but it’s certainly progress.”
Unfortunately it seems we now live in a society where it seems we have to destroy all our institutional treasures under the pretext of improving them but in reality we are destroying ourselves and our institutions for the sake of money?
Here are a few examples off the top of my head.
The Church: The pretext is that the hierarchy is letting us down. But the reality is we have a new god – money. The new churches are the markets, banks, financial institutions etc. The new high priests are the investors.
Marriage: The pretext is an even playing field. But marriage, which was never deigned for anything other than a contract for procreation is now little more than the “big day”. And the result is that according to a recent survey 30% of children are born outside marriage. Again the reason has more to do with money than anything else. Some want marriage to include them for pension and inheritance rights etc. Others want to be considered as not married for the over-generous support given to those whose fathers refuse to support their children.
The education system: Since I was at school and received a classical education which included Latin and Greek with all possible subjects being taught through Irish the educational system has been pulled and dragged in all directions and in order to pursue the money trail the classical education is long gone and I heard recently that students should learn Chinese and a priority be given to the sciences.
The public service: When I started in the public service promotions were awarded to those with experience and common sense. However this independence in public servants did not suit the modern politicians. They wanted a more pliable public service and a system of promotion to accommodate this and for the sake of the money some of the younger and more greedy public servants were only too glad to go along with the idea.
The Constitution: For the sake of money promised by the EU we have abandoned the Constitution. But the opposite has come about and we now see that our economy is being destroyed by the free movement of people, goods and services without the EU paying its fair share of the cost which our state has to carry in benefits which it is obliged to pay to all EU citizens living in the state.
@EWI – aye, Mullen, Walsh, Hanifin will certainly be jumping up and down a bit.
@Eddie – sorry – have no idea how that comment in any way relates to Civil Partnerships…
@EddieL So, to summarize your post:
*grumble* *grumble* … good old days … *grumble* *grumble* …things not related to this post *grumble*
IanG: “*grumble* *grumble* … good old days”.
There were no good old days. My parents generation fought for their rights to a fairer and a more just society and that is what they got. But my generation (from the 1960′s onwards)fought for money and power and that is what we got except it is concentrated in the hands of a few.
So if any generation is to be blamed for our present situation it is my generation. I wonder what will people say about their generation in forty years time?
Will the “Civil Partnership Bill” bring about a fairer or more just socity or will it help to destroy the very fabric of society which my parents generation fought so hard to maintain.
I am broadly in favour of the measures proposed by this civil partnership bill but feel it goes far enough from a reforming standpoint for now.
Change came dropping slow in Irish society from 1930 to 1990. But seismic changes have occured in the last twenty years such that the country I grew up, born in 1969 is now recognized only on “reeling in the years”.
Some of these changes have had unforseen effects. For example Irelands system of social welfare provisions for single parents has been recognized by many as creating a disincentive for marriage and contributing to a breakdown of traditional family units. This is an unforseen side effect of a worthy social provision.
I fail to understand why anyone would make a radical argument against the institution of marriage. Monogamy and commitment are difficult but are part of the challenges one takes on in trying to evolve as a person and in trying to create your own best environment for your own children to grow up in.
Would the opening of the institution to assorted types of union lessen the status of the traditional family unit?
Should the traditional family unit be afforded some rarified protected status as the ideal best way to bring up children?
I am not a sociologist so I wont answer those questions. I am also nobody elses moral guardian. I cant help feeling that some of the ultraliberal gay/Lesbian campaigners bring their own type of moral superiority to the table.
I dont believe either side have the right to be strident until the pace of social and moral change in this country slows down a little and we get a chance to see where we really are as a people in our postmodern secular landscape. The weighing up and appreciating of the real effects of all this change will take place over an unravelling period into the near future.
For that reason I am happy to see this bill through but belive it is enough for now. Let the legislation bed in and revisit the debate in afew years.
Said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: Abolish marriage and make civil partnerships available to any two adults regardless of whether their relationship is sexual or not.
The problem has always been that people try to use legal instruments to promote their moralities and preferences. The gay marriage lobby is continuing this tradition. One would have hoped that having seen how legal marriage is used to discriminate against people in atypical relationships, people would have realised its flaws. Instead, what we’re seeing is that people seem to accept that it is okay to privilege socially preferred relationships but what they are starting to reject is the notion that gay relationships cannot be part of that group. That’s not progress. It’s a step backward. If all of the energy being put into promoting gay marriage was put into examining the purpose of civil marriage and whether it was fit for its purpose, then we might be in danger of making some sort of progress toward a more just society.
Niall, legal recognition of marriage recognises the loving and romantic relationship between two people, helps them to build a life together and creates a better place for children to be raised. Society rightlyattatches importance to the institution of marriage. Society is totally justified in promoting stable family units. One’s relationship with a friend is very much differwent from one’srelationship with one’s spouse. I do not believe that such an important institution should be denied to people because of their gender. No one is abused, no one is harmed.
Society is right to recognise the usefulness of marriage. I value marriage as a social institution but the law should not discriminate against those of us who aren’t in one of these relationships, particularly given that there is no test (and no way of testing) whether or not the relationship being recognised is actually loving or romantic.
There are elements of marriage that one could argue are useful (next of kin status, inheritance rights, widow’s pension etc.) but these might prove equally useful to individuals in other forms of dependent relationships, not just romantic relationships.
One assumption that seems to basis of many of the rights given to married couples is that they plan to raise children. This is a flaw. Why give these rights to those who have no intention of raising children? And by granting these couples these rights, do we not put at a disadvantage those children who are being raised by those who choose not to marry or those who are single parents?
Niall: “There are elements of marriage that one could argue are useful (next of kin status, inheritance rights, widow’s pension etc.).”
Indeed! The only problem with spouse’s pension is that they are based on financial considerations and contributions which were put in place many years ago. To put it simply no account was taken of the notion that any Tom, Dick or Harry could be nominated as a beneficiary of a person’s pension contributions. To insist that such pension rights be applied now is to gate-crash the pensions system.
As regards “next of kin” and “inheritance rights” all that is required is to make a will.
Eddie, you’re right, people should make a will. But people don’t do this, and we’re left in a situation where we have to decide who makes decisions about that person’s life and their belongings. Alas, people are prudent as often as not.