Speech on Civil Partnership Bill 2009

The below is a speech I delivered to the Law Society in TCD last night.  I was speaking on behalf of the NLGF, so the position is not quite one that I would completely agree with.  However, I was very pleased with the speech generally, and got quite an ego boost from praise I received from Senator Norris and Gerard Hogan S.C.

Updated to include photo, with thanks again to Emma Fenelon – debates convenor of Law Soc.

Distinguished guests, Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Law Society, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak here tonight on behalf of the National Lesbian and Gay Federation, and to propose the motion that “This House believes that the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 entrenches second class citizenship”.

To begin this debate, we must define what we understand by the term citizenship.  A citizen is a full participating member of a society with all of the rights, duties and responsibilities that that entails.

Second-class citizenship is therefore a term used to describe those to whom those rights, duties and responsibilities are not attached.  I strongly believe that same-sex couples are already granted only second-class citizenship within this country, and that the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 will only entrench that position further.

The arguments that I will put forward here tonight revolve around three central themes.  Firstly, I will argue that our politicians have a duty of representation to the LGBT community.  By outlining some of the research that has been done within the community, I will show that this duty of representation has been willfully ignored.

Secondly, I will aim to provide a critique of the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, underlining the differences between it and Civil Marriage.

And finally, I will argue that the Civil Partnership Bill represents an incremental approach to equality, and I will attempt to detail the flaws of engaging in that tactical approach.

1. Representation

Under our political system, our politicians are morally obliged to represent all of those by whom they are elected.  It is within this mandate that the Government has argued there is a need to introduce a Civil Partnership Bill, which will address the concerns of LGBT citizens.  Unfortunately, this argument is not sustained by research of the views of those citizens.

Last week, the National Lesbian and Gay Federation published a piece of research entitled “Burning Issues: listening to the voices of the LGBT community in Ireland”.  This research gathered the views of over 1100 LGBT people in Ireland – one of the largest national surveys of the community ever published.

The survey yielded some surprises, with Equal Rights at Work and Bullying and Violence against LGBT people figuring as the two issues of most concern which arose from the quantitative questions.  This may be a slight aside, but these findings clearly show that there is still a substantial body of work to be done to address these issues.

What was less surprising for those of us within the community, was the desire for Marriage Equality expressed in the survey.  Marriage Equality appeared as the third most important issue from the quantitative questions.  On the other hand, within the qualitative, open-ended questions, Marriage Equality was by far and away the most pressing priority for the LGBT community, with 25% of respondents designating it their most pressing priority (in contrast with a mere 6% who designated Civil Partnerships as their most pressing priority).

The reasons for this finding are simple.  LGBT people desire, not equality in treatment, as some would argue a complete Civil Partnership model would provide, but equality of opportunity, where same-sex couples are not marginalized and separated, but embraced by the institutions of the state.

It is a truth apparent from this research, that politicians are not fulfilling their duty of representation to LGBT citizens, but have rather decided to create a marginal institution which will dilute the rights, duties and responsibilities of same-sex couples.  This is surely a classic definition of the entrenchment of second-class citizenship.

Over the last 3 years, the LGBT community has increasingly mobilized in support of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples.  Their political engagement in protests, rallies, lobbying and research on this issue has been significant.  I hold no truck with those who would protest against Civil Partnerships, as I think that is a negative stance which will only serve to divide our community.  However, I applaud those who continue to mobilize in favour of same-sex marriage.  Politics and politicians must not be allowed to make judgments on behalf of LGBT people, but rather must be encouraged to genuinely represent all those who elect them.

2. Analysis of Civil Partnership Bill 2009

In a debate around the entrenchment of second class citizenship, we must analyse the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 which has been proposed.

Senator Norris’ Civil Partnership Bill in 2004 ran to 12 pages, while the Labour Party’s Civil Unions Bill in 2006 ran to only 7 pages.  This is because both Bills attempted to start from a position of equal citizenship, mandating that position to be implemented in any other legislation necessary.

In contrast, the Government Bill runs to 118 pages.  This is because the Government has deliberately set-out to limit the rights, duties and responsibilities of same-sex couples.  Their starting principle is that same-sex couples are second class citizens, and this is a position which is reinforced throughout the legislation.

The briefest perusal of the Government’s Bill shows four clear areas in which the rights, duties and responsibilities of civil partnered couples will differ to those of married couples – tax, social welfare, dissolution of partnerships and adoption.

Now, the Government has freely admitted that taxation and social welfare matters have been omitted from this bill, but they have stated that these matters will be corrected in the Budget.  This will at least create a significant gap between the introduction of Civil Partnerships, and the corresponding introduction of the appropriate taxation and social welfare measures.  And what odds that these recessionary times will be used to delay or dilute such an introduction even further?

On the matter of dissolution of partnerships and adoption, there is no such parliamentary trickery to hide behind.  Civil partners will be required to separate for 2 years prior to dissolution of the civil partnership.  This is in contrast to divorce law, which requires that married couples be separated for 4 years prior to divorce.  Is this because the Government assumes us gays to be more promiscuous, and less able to remain in long-term relationships?

Similarly, it is clear that this Government has no intention of ever opening the adoption process to same-sex couples, or even of ever recognizing the many children who are already being raised in same-sex families.  During the 1993 debate on the decriminalization of homosexuality, Dermot Ahern said, and I quote:

Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility.

It would appear that his viewpoint has changed little in the intervening period.

On this point, the research which I mentioned earlier threw up some interesting statistics.  Of those surveyed, 41.7% of women over 35 have children, while 16% of men over 35 have children.  That’s an astonishingly large number of children for the Government to simply cast aside.

Not only does this Government wish to entrench the position of same-sex couples as second class citizens, it appears that they would like to create a third-class citizenship for their children, who have no rights to even have their parents recognized by the state.

3. Rejection of the incremental approach to equality

There are those within the LGBT community, and within politics at large, who argue that an incremental approach to achieving equality in this area is required.  They point to the incremental liberalisation of Divorce law in this country as the perfect example of what they are trying to achieve.  And they argue that the constitutional impediments to Same-Sex Marriage are such that we must accept Civil Partnerships as a first-step in that direction.

The divorce example that is so often bandied about is disingenuous in the extreme.  Yes, it is true that the path to divorce began with reforms which allowed for legal separation.  However, that example assumes that the divorce argument was won in full.  At the time of the divorce referendum, campaigners were assured that the required 4-year separation period was a temporary measure – another increment in the process.  However, that 4-year period has remained enshrined, with little political appetite to amend it to allow people to escape from unhappy or abusive marriages.

As another example, Norway adopted an incremental approach to same-sex marriage in 1994 when they introduced Civil Partnerships.  However, it was only in 2009 that they managed to legalize same-sex marriage.  Are we really expecting LGBT people in Ireland to accept a similar 15-year wait for equality?

This is the key question that must be asked of those who argue for an incremental approach to equality – how often must significant increments be achieved to justify the approach?

• It is now 5 years since Senator Norris introduced his Bill.
• It is now 3 years since the Labour Party tabled the Civil Unions Bill
• It is almost 2.5 years since the formation of this Government

At this glacial pace, we will be lucky to see these limited forms of Civil Partnership introduced by the time this Government leaves office.

I could also speak at some length to challenge the assertion that the constitutional impediments to same-sex marriage are too great to allow any step beyond the current proposal.  Unfortunately, time will not permit such an intervention, but suffice to say that legal opinion is greatly divided on this matter.

There is a very brief quote from Minister Dermot Ahern on the day he published the Civil Partnership Bill.  He said:

Civil Partnerships are not a stepping stone to gay marriage

I think that speak volumes about the likely success of an incremental approach, and also about the ability of the Green Party to genuinely bring about an end to the second-class citizenship of the LGBT community.

In conclusion, and I will finish on this brief point, the Government, through the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 is abjectly failing to represent the needs of the LGBT community.  They are introducing a marginal bill which will clearly make civil partnerships inferior to marriage.  And they are adopting an incremental approach that tells LGBT citizens that they must wait for equality.  I think you will all agree that this clearly represents  an entrenchment of second-class citizenship.