CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL:A LEGAL requirement for an attempt at reconciliation before granting the dissolution of a civil partnership would bring civil partnership closer to marriage and could give rise to a constitutional challenge, according to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.
An amendment that recognised the contribution either partner made to the rearing of children in the relationship could also give rise to such a challenge, he said.
Mr Ahern was responding to proposed amendments from Fine Gael’s spokesman on justice Charlie Flanagan, who had proposed inserting into the Civil Partnership Bill a requirement that a solicitor acting for partners seeking a dissolution of their relationship should be required to draw their attention to the options of reconciliation or mediation.
These requirements were present in the law relating to the dissolution of marriage, he pointed out at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee of Justice, Defence and Women’s Rights.
Mr Ahern said the advice of the Attorney General was that this part of the Family Law (Divorce) Act followed a constitutional requirement that the prospect of reconciliation should be considered. The absence of such a requirement in the Civil Partnership Bill was “part of keeping the key distinction between marriage and civil partnership,” he said.
While he was in favour of civil partners availing of services for reconciliation and mediation, putting this into the legislation would run the risk of constitutional challenge, he said.
“I am surprised and disappointed at the view of the Attorney General,” Mr Flanagan said. “I feel we should encourage alternatives to dissolution and to litigation.”
He also proposed inserting into the Bill a requirement that, when it came to a dissolution of a partnership, one of the issues the court should take into account was the contribution that either partner made to the upbringing of a child.
Brendan Howlin, for the Labour Party, said he favoured full rights for children in this situation, including adoption rights, which needed to be achieved in further legislation, likely to follow the children’s rights amendment.
Mr Ahern said the Constitution has very clearly stated that marriage is between a man and woman. Even the European Court of Human Rights had not determined that same-sex couples fell within the protection of the Convention on Human Rights.
For the State to provide equal constitutional protection for married families and other families would not be compatible with article 41. There were many other pieces of legislation protecting the rights of children that could be used in this context, he said.
The Civil Partnership Bill is “good for gay people”, a Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (Glen) spokesman told an event attended by Tánaiste Mary Coughlan yesterday.
Glen spokesman Kieran Rose described the Bill as a major piece of family law reform. “It is good for gay people, it is good for society, it is a matter of human rights.”
Ms Coughlan said she welcomed Mr Rose’s comments on the Bill as she launched Glen’s guidelines on workplace diversity. “Government is committed to ensuring equality . . . in the workplace and society,” she said.
