Oral Hearings

Family Issues: Presentations.

[Mr. Conor Coughlan ]

History has shown we are a nation with a collective will to remove oppressors, to fight for our right to self-determination, to engage in domestic and international humanitarian aid, to assist in the promotion of key values of democracy and to create a better world for all people. We do not believe the Irish people desire to live in a society that is unfair and unjust, where minorities are oppressed and not afforded the rights of their mainstream counterparts. We do not believe that citizens of this great nation desire that other Irish people should be considered second-class citizens in their own country. We ask committee members to ensure this does not continue to happen.

Article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all are equal before the law and are entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. Article 41 of the Constitution states that marriage is a key building block in the creation of the family. We also believe this is true and call upon the committee to support and facilitate countless same sex families to take their rightful place in society.

The Taoiseach recently stated that same sex relationships are not illegal, immoral or improper. I have always strived to achieve a happy, fulfilled and valued life. From an early age, I hoped I could emulate the lives of my parents and that one day, like many others, I would be able to create a stable and worthwhile family. However, this opportunity is currently denied me. If one denies same sex couples the right to civil marriage, one is sending to society the message that such relationships and commitments are inferior to those of heterosexual couples solely on the basis of sexual orientation. Such a decision would be a step backwards.

Gay people are taxpaying, democratic, valued members of society who are seeking the right to lead equitable and fulfilled lives. We urge the committee to recommend that civil marriage be open to same sex couples, that constitutional legislation be amended so that the interpretation of the term “marriage” includes same sex couples and that the term “family” be broadened to incorporate the diversity of family structures currently in existence in Ireland.

Change should not be feared but embraced, recognising that it will benefit society as a whole. We should be able to once again raise our heads high among our brethren in the global community knowing we have looked at our equality weaknesses so as to create positive changes that will lead to a stronger, more diverse and developed nation. We do not need to look too far to find nations that have done so. Nations such as South Africa, which we once frowned on for their civil abuses, have looked within and seen what is not good and have taken the necessary steps to create a better nation for all its people. As Cameron J. A. stated to the Supreme Court of South Africa in respect of same sex marriages, “The capacity to choose to get married enhances liberty, the autonomy and dignity of a couple”. We hope the committee will also acknowledge this to be true.

My colleague, Mr. Padraic Whyte will now address the committee.

Mr. Padraic Whyte: I thank the committee for the opportunity to voice our perspective on this issue. A central theme of our submission is that marriage for same sex couples must be equal in status to that of heterosexual couples. This includes eligibility to adopt children. Given that same sex couples are permitted to foster children and single gay people can adopt children, there is no reason a gay couple cannot be considered for adoption. The well-being of a child is more important than the sexual orientation of its parents.

The submission also details many of the concerns relating to this issue. Studies indicate that a child is not disadvantaged as a result of its having same sex parents. Male and female role models come from a variety of sources in a child’s life, namely, grandparents, neighbours, teachers and pop stars. As detailed in the submission, research has shown that “not a single study has found children of gay and lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”.

Gay parent families exist and will continue to do so. It is not the case that legalising gay marriage will suddenly create gay parent families. The Government must protect the rights of individual members of the family, partners, parents and children by providing them with the opportunity to avail of the benefits that accompany heterosexual parent families. Many other states in the EU, including the UK, allow gay couples to adopt children. The Irish State must follow suit in order to protect the well-being of the child. When gay couples and their families move to Ireland, they do not get the same recognition under Irish law and a child is subsequently stripped of a parent.

The submission urges that a system of education be introduced in conjunction with the legalisation of gay marriage. Prohibiting same sex marriage attaches a stigma to homosexuality and implies that gay couples are inferior to heterosexuals. One cannot choose to be gay or heterosexual. I understand the fears and concerns of those opposed to legalising gay marriage. I grew up in a traditional rural community which experienced that fear. Telling my parents I was gay was the most difficult thing I had to do in my life because I was aware of their fears and their perspective on the issue. When I told them, my dad, a devout Catholic in his sixties, went and read books on the subject. He has read about five books in his whole life. He was amazed to discover that the picture he had in his head was wrong. Change is possible and Ireland is ready for it. My father told me I needed to educate people about homosexuality and to help them understand it. That is the reason I am here today.

I appeal to members to take the time to read our submission and to open their minds and hearts to it. Prohibiting same sex marriage affects the lives of so many people, not only those who are gay but also their families, friends and children. This is not an issue of tax and inheritance rights, it is about people’s lives.

The State discriminates against children who are gay because marriage is not an option in their future. This can affect their emotional and psychological well-being. As documented on page 11 of the submission, research indicates that, when growing up, a child needs to imagine supporting systems of mutuality and trust, while experiencing social acceptance among his or her peers and community. Being denied the same dignity and sense of value as everyone else can become too much for some teenagers and, as studies have shown, can lead to attempted suicide. What would members do if their children could not cope? Would they leave things as they are or would they implement change?

Irish legislation must correspond to progress made internationally. The Netherlands, Belgium and South Africa, a country plagued by discrimination, recognise civil marriage for same sex couples. The Spanish and Swedish Governments have recently passed legislation that permits same sex marriage. Spanish equality legislation confirms that a predominantly Catholic country can adapt to respect diversity for the common good. Ireland can look towards Spain as a model in terms of ending discrimination. All gay people are seeking is dignity and equality.

Marriage is not defined in the Constitution but it is interpreted by the Supreme Court as the unification of a man and woman. We are asking that this committee follow the lead of South Africa and Spain by recommending a broader interpretation of the term “marriage” to incorporate same sex couples. While not seeking change to the wording of the Constitution, we are asking that the committee recommend the introduction of legislation that will recognise civil marriage for same sex couples and bring equality to all. This will save current and future generations of adults and children from unfounded bias and prejudice. The submission substantiates in detail that doing so will protect a marginalised group, reinforce the importance of marriage and benefit Irish society as a whole. It is useful to conclude our argument with a statement from Judge Marshall, C. J. in the Massachusetts Supreme Court:

If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage’s solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.

We will be happy to answer any questions from members of the committee.

Chairman: Does the delegation believe Senator David Norris’s Bill, which it says it supports, does not go far enough in allowing for civil partnership only, and that marriage should be allowed for gay and lesbian couples?

Mr. Coughlan: Yes. The issue is that Senator Norris’s Bill is not designed for that. We are looking for no more and no less than heterosexual counterparts have, the ability to have a civil partnership, a civil union and get married.

Mr. Whyte: We would only ever see the Civil Partnership Bill as a stepping stone towards equality. Heterosexuals will still have the choice to opt for civil partnership or marriage whereas we would not have that option. We therefore believe it still discriminates.

Chairman: There are two other points I would like to put. The majority of the submissions to us, whether right or wrong, advocated strongly, and in some instances more than strongly, that the definition of the family in the Constitution, interpreted by the courts as based on marriage between a man and a woman, should not be changed. That is one of the problems we face. Second, irrespective of what conclusions we reach in our deliberations, which will happen in the next three to four months, it appears that if gay or lesbian marriage were to be allowed the Constitution would need to be amended. I have spoken to Senator Norris who has spoken to the Taoiseach, and Senator Norris has kindly agreed to suspend his Bill until the committee has concluded its deliberations. I understand he had hoped we would have concluded by now, but this is a complex area and we are doing the best we can with the limited resources at our disposal.

Irish people are very protective of the Constitution. A referendum could be divisive. If such a referendum were defeated, it might set back the issue for the next 20 years rather than moving it forward. Might not Senator Norris’s stepping stone approach be a practical way of moving the issue forward? What are the delegation’s views on that?

Mr. Whyte: There are a couple of issues. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution. We are trying to guess at the perspectives of other groups who have made submissions to the committee. We also argue that there should not be a definition in the Constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman. There is no definition in the Spanish constitution that marriage must be between a man and a woman, but the government there urged the supreme court to change its interpretation of the term “marriage” as used within the constitution. That is what we are asking for. We do not ask for a referendum. We are a minority group and the Government needs to protect minority groups through legislation, not through referenda.

Chairman: Does Mr. Whyte believe this could be dealt with by legislation?

Mr. Whyte: Yes, it could. The legislation can come into effect only if there is encouragement for a wider interpretation of marriage as used in the Constitution. It is still related to the Constitution.

Chairman: All legislation introduced is subject to challenge. Not very long ago a Bill passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas was referred by the President to the Supreme Court and struck down. That is always a possibility. Although the courts can change their views, headline decisions in our courts at the highest level in recent times have construed the Constitution in a conservative fashion. I am not sure whether legislators, if they so wished, could force a change on the judges. That is only a view.

Mr. Whyte: Let me respond to that. In terms of how legislation is going, the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights will eventually influence the interpretation of laws in Europe and, as the Brussels II Convention has proven, there is a call for similar frameworks regarding adoption issues across Europe and across the EU. If Ireland does not change its legislation there is a risk that it will be changed from Europe. What we are asking is that Ireland make the change rather than be forced to make it by Europe.

Deputy Cuffe: In the past few days I have been quite taken aback by the spectrum of views represented to us, in particular by the number of groups and individuals who have called for no change, and the realisation that there is a certain fear out there. There is a process of education that we as politicians must bring to this debate. I hope that as a committee we can add to it.

I have spoken out in support of gay marriage and I welcome and support this submission. From the group’s knowledge of the gay community, does it believe that of those who would take an interest in the subject, the majority favour gay marriage? I note Senator Norris’s Bill. I note there are those in the gay community who would not touch marriage with a barge pole and who would not wish to partake in that ceremony. However, in general terms, is there among the gay community significant support for marriage as opposed to recognition of civil unions?

Mr. Coughlan: As we have outlined already, we are speaking on the basis of our mandate, which is our membership base, and they are 100% in favour, quite unlike other organisations that have spoken speculatively about what the community may want. Our membership base is very broad in age and range, between those who are in relationships and those who are not. Our group, which generally finds it difficult to agree on anything, agrees 100% on this issue. It is the choice and equality we want. If the committee were to ask any gay people, they are entirely for equality. The inherent issue here is that equality does not happen overnight. Equality is something that mainstream society always finds it difficult to deal with. However, that is the issue, the fundamental principle of equality, that we urge be addressed.

Referenda in Ireland are always hotly debated. Equality legislation is always difficult to pass. Working previously with the National Consultative Committee on Racism in Ireland on a diversity at work programme, I am aware that the Irish people’s attitude towards non-nationals and immigrants is also staunchly rooted in misconception. It is something they would also hotly debate if we were to have a referendum on it. The issue of equality needs to be fostered, developed and nurtured by Government. It should not be left to public opinion.

Senator Tuffy: I understood from the submission that it was being suggested the Constitution should be amended to broaden the definition of marriage. However, I now understand that is not necessarily what is suggested, but that there should be a broader understanding of marriage. It seems the Constitution discriminates in favour of the family based on marriage. Is it correct that the group is suggesting not that the Constitution discriminates in favour of the family based on marriage but that the definition of marriage should be broader.

Mr. Coughlan: It is twofold. In the Senator’s use of the word “family”, it is also what she assumes or interprets a family to be. I would hope that subsequent interpretations of the Constitution would see marriage and family in their broadest forms, particularly as we live in an era when 30% of couples are cohabiting and when a vast number of single parents, both male and female, are not represented but are families.

Senator Tuffy: I wonder how cohabiting couples would come into it. If one discriminates in the Constitution in favour of a marriage, whether same sex or heterosexual, then one is possibly discriminating against people who are outside of that, perhaps same sex or heterosexual cohabiting couples.

Mr. Whyte: I agree entirely with the Senator. We mention in our submission that there is a need for a broader interpretation of the term “marriage” and of the family in the Constitution. We are of the view that marriage should not have such a privileged status and should respect the individuals within it. Due to the particular angle we take in our submission, however, we have narrowed it down. Marriage will never cease. There will always be marriage. We are fighting, therefore, for the right to be able to marry. That is one aspect but it is merely a small part of a much larger process to recognise the diversity of family structures in Ireland at present.

We would welcome constitutional change, in terms of giving the family that sort of enshrined status in the Constitution. However, it is important that it should be more about the members of the family. The individual members - whether they are children of heterosexual parents, same sex parents or whatever - of the families in question should enjoy the same respect and the Constitution should acknowledge that.

Marriage, for us, is one of the building blocks to which I refer. It is not necessarily the only such building block but it exists and we would like to be part of it. We are not engaging in an attack on marriage, a point which has been raised in some of the other submissions the committee has heard. By advocating same sex marriage, we are in no way attacking the institution of marriage. As we have stated and as has been discovered in Massachusetts and South Africa, it is a means of reinforcing the importance of marriage because people are willing to become committed to these relationships.

Chairman: Another group, Focus on the Family, which came before the committee today stated that there was a group here last week called GLUE. The debate focussed on the area adoption. Focus on the Family stated:

Last week the committee asked another group advocating same sex marriage about the impact of same sex parenting on children. The committee was told that there was no evidence to show that same sex parenting has a negative impact on children and that what matters is good quality parenting. We were astounded to hear this assertion. There is a wealth of data on the impact of parenting on children, much of which concerns the impact of the different roles played by mothers and fathers in the parenting of their children.

We were rebuked when we raised the issue of adoption. I wonder if our guests would concur with that view.

Mr. Coughlan: No.

Deputy Cuffe: Did the group in question instance those studies?

Chairman: It supplied a great deal of data. As there is so much material in front of us, I cannot honestly say what is factual and what is not.

Deputy Cuffe: I would be curious as to whether the group supplied us with any specifics.

Chairman: This was one of the groups which has made strong representations. Before this debate even started, I was accused in some quarters of being out to dismantle the Constitution and of moving with the gay movement, etc. We are here as a group of politicians analysing another part of the Constitution. At this stage, we are looking at the role of the family, the rights of children, etc. We have no hidden agenda. We are trying to see if we can produce a report, which the Taoiseach has asked us to do. The issues involved, not only in respect of this area, are quite complex. There are numerous areas involved. In any event, those are some of the difficulties with which we must deal.

The group before us has made its case succinctly and clearly. It made a detailed submission and we will take that on board. I thank the group for coming in and engaging the committee in a meaningful debate.

Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.48 p.m.

Chairman: This is the last group to appear before the committee this afternoon. Family and Media Association is represented by Mr. Ivo O’Sullivan, Mrs. Gobnait Ó Grádaigh and Mrs. Jacqueline Asgough, who are welcome. Before we begin, I remind visitors that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it.

As we received the group’s submission already, we do not want the group to read out a ten-page submission. We would prefer it to synopsise the submission in a period of five or six minutes. We will try to confine ourselves to aspects of the Constitution where the group feels we should do something. This will be followed by a question and answer session. If the delegates will excuse the pun, in speaking to Senator Tuffy a moment ago I said I am trying to get home to west Cork this evening to my family. It may not be possible but I will try anyway.

Mrs. Gobnait Ó Grádaigh: My name is Gobnait Ó Grádaigh. On my left is Mrs. Jacqueline Asgough and on my right is Mr. Ivo O’Sullivan, chairman of the Family and Media Association. I thank the committee for inviting us to appear before it. I would like to tell the committee a little about the Family and Media Association, which has been in existence for more than ten years. It was founded as a non-governmental organisation to monitor the media with the welfare of family in mind. Our aims are to promote respect by the media for Christian values especially those relating to the family; to seek high standards of honesty, decency, fairness and truthfulness in the media; to promote effective dialogue between the media and the public; to promote public understanding of the functioning and power of the media; and to assess and enhance the value of the media to the individual, the family and the community. The connection with us being here today is that we believe the media has a profound effect on the family. We also believe that through a strong family people get the courage and confidence to withstand the negative effects of the media.

We are informed by Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution, referring to freedom of expression, which states, “The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.” Section 3(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act 1976 states that it shall be the duty of the broadcasting authority to ensure that, “the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner”. The Censorship of Film Act 1923 requires the film censor to refuse certificate to any film, which is “indecent, obscene or... would tend to inculcate principles contrary to public morality”.

The Family and Media Association is very concerned about the corrupting influence of such material on most people, particularly children and youths. We are all sadly aware of the binge drinking and the illicit sex and kind of aimless lives many young people lead. Our research and expertise have led us to see that such material definitely forms part of the ingredients bringing about much of this delinquent behaviour. As we monitor the media, we have noticed that RTE is unbalanced and not fair especially on issues that we are discussing here today.

Our experience and research has also shown us that there is a profound effect on the welfare of the family and the common good through the media. As I have said before and as my colleague will say after me, we believe the secure family best prepares our young people to withstand this onslaught. I now invite my colleague, Mrs. Jacqueline Asgough, to speak about the salient points of our submission.

Mrs. Jacqueline Asgough: Given the time constraints of the committee, I will pick out the salient points from our submission. Having a Bachelor of Arts degree in radio, television and film I am aware of the external influences of the media on the family. Through the work of the FMA, we are well aware that this influence can be of both a negative and positive nature. Daily we hear of anti-social behaviour in our cities and towns as young people act out and imitate the attitudes and behaviours they have seen and heard over the airwaves. As my colleague has already said, research has taught us that those best equipped to cope with these negative influences from the media are those young people who have grown up in committed, loving, stable heterosexual families where they experience very strong male and female role models. We therefore conclude that the best way to help stabilise our society and work for the common good is to uphold the current definition of the family in the Constitution.

The census report from the Department of Social and Family Affairs in 2004 found that more than 60% of families in Ireland are based on a married husband and wife unit. A further 20% of families were based on cohabiting heterosexual couples, which means that more than 80% of families are based on heterosexual relationships. The natural and normal evolution of society is the heterosexual relationship. Those who framed the Constitution, which was passed in a referendum by the people, understood that the family comprised one man and one woman, who officially married, and the children of their union. Experience has shown this is the best arrangement for rearing children. The family does not need to be, nor should it be, redefined. The balance between the rights of the family and the rights of the individual members is found in every functional family. Children have the natural right to grow up in a stable and protected environment.

Regarding homosexual union, one of the main purposes of marriage is to have and rear children. Homosexual coupling is a sterile arrangement. Experience based on research shows that only marriage provides the stable environment children need for healthy psychological and emotional development. It is important to realise this for the sake of the welfare of the State and the common good. Homosexual marriage would be unfavourable to this.

As a woman in the home, I believe the contribution I make to the rearing of my children is immeasurable to Irish society. Most of my women friends who work outside the home wish they could stay at home to raise their children. However, because of financial constraints they must work outside the home. The State could do more to support mothers in the home.

The purpose of our submission is to put forward what we have found through observation, experience and research to be what is best for the child and the common good. The Constitution should promote what is best for society. It embodies the ethos of the people and what they see as best. We should therefore promote what is best for the child as well as the common good, which is a heterosexual long-term committed covenant relationship. We should be reluctant to change the Constitution regarding the family.

Deputy Devins: I thank the witnesses for their submission, the last line of which states,“Therefore we believe it should not be changed in relation to the family.” I wish to press the witnesses further. This committee is tasked with ascertaining whether the Constitution should be changed to increase and protect the rights of children. Does the Family and Media Association also hold that the Constitution is sufficiently strong regarding the rights of children?

Mrs. Ó Grádaigh: Yes. We believe children’s rights are covered and that in a functional family they have rights. Dysfunctional cases can be addressed by legislation rather than tampering with the Constitution. Giving responsibility to Government or other bodies to look after children takes away from the natural right of parents to be the primary educators, nourishers and carers of their children.

Deputy Devins: I thank Mrs. Ó Grádaigh for her brief and good answer. I wish to raise an issue previously raised with us. I am not sure if the witnesses are aware of the PKU case regarding a family in Donegal in which the parents did not allow the State to carry out the phenylketonuria test on the child. They took a case to the Supreme Court, which upheld their right. Most commentators would believe that the child should have had the PKU test. While I know this is an exceptional case, do the witnesses not believe in having enshrined in the Constitution specific protection of the rights of the child in such a case?

Chairman: Following on from the valid point made by Deputy Devins, the appalling Kilkenny incest case was also raised with the committee. My understanding is that at least two girl members of the family were subjected to appalling treatment by their father for years. An inquiry by an eminent judge subsequently held that the child in question had not been adequately protected by the Constitution. These may be extreme cases.

The joint committee has heard presentations from more than 50 groups. The Ombudsman for Children and others have submitted that the rights of the child need to be enhanced within the Constitution because less than adequate provision is made for them. Cases such as the PKU case, the Donegal case and the Kilkenny incest case give the impression that the courts have interpreted the Constitution as not giving appropriate recognition to the rights of the child. In this context, is there a need to strengthen these rights in the Constitution as legislation may not be strong enough? In another case the court decided to be guided by the Constitution which deals with the family unit.

This is a worry for many groups which have submitted to the joint committee that the rights of the child should be regarded as central to and the axis of the family, whether based on marriage, a cohabiting couple or a single mother or father. If the rights of the child were properly protected under the Constitution, family units could revolve around them. What is the delegation’s opinion on this proposal?

Mrs. Asgough: We are very concerned about the protection of children. I am the mother of four young children and the protection of children is a very high priority for me. I wish to see my children and others given protection. The Constitution is about the ethos and aspirations of the people. The protection of the individual rights of certain groups such as children is achieved best by means of legislation.

Page 5 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)