In her address to the World Congress of the International Association for Suicide Prevention last week, President Mary McAleese went out of her way to draw attention to one issue of concern to the gay and lesbian community. Reminding her audience of the need to look at the personal stories behind suicide statistics, she called on society to decommission attitudes that encourage all bullying and, in particular, attitudes that are deeply hurtful to those who are homosexual, writes Noel Whelan
The President's remarks reflect a growing recognition of difficulties experienced by the gay and lesbian community. They also reflect a growing recognition by leading political figures of the need to be conscious of and to address these discriminations.
There remains, however, one significant discrimination against gays and lesbians that has still to be addressed and should be a priority for the new Dáil term. In recent years, many European countries have introduced legal recognition for the committed relationships of same-sex couples. Ireland has lagged behind and risks lagging even further, to the detriment of many Irish citizens. It is not easy to write legislation providing for same-sex civil unions. This is why it has been the subject of detailed study in three extensive reports: the report on the family of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution, the Law Reform Commission's Report on the Rights and Duties of Cohabitants and the report of the Colley Working Group on domestic partnerships. All were published in 2006, but to date, none of the options they outline have been implemented.
Last February, the Labour Party introduced a Private Members' Bill providing for same-sex civil unions, but it was voted down by the government. Its argument against the Bill was threefold. First, it suggested it was unconstitutional, but didn't specify how. Labour said it had legal advice to the contrary.
Secondly, it said civil unions for same-sex couples should be dealt with simultaneously with civil unions for heterosexual couples wishing to enter into legally recognised relationships short of marriage.
Thirdly, it argued legislation should await the Supreme Court determination in the Zappone-Gilligan case. The opposition pointed out that the issue in that case concerned whether, as the law stands, the State must recognise a same-sex marriage contracted in Canada, not whether the law should be changed to register same-sex unions here.
Campaigners for civil-union legislation have differing views on the impact of this defeat on their campaign. Some are angry at the government for failing to take the opportunity it presented. Those of the "glass half-full" disposition feel that the Dáil debate and media coverage aired the issue and served to drive it further up the political agenda. They also point to the fact that all of the speeches in the Dáil debate were supportive of the concept of same-sex civil unions. There were some interesting, sympathetic speeches from government backbenchers. This was significant because it was expected that much of the oppositionwould come from those benches.
An election has since taken place and, interestingly, all the main party manifestos included promises to enact legislation to provide for civil unions. This was followed through - at least in words - in the programme for government negotiated between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, which contains a commitment to "legislate for civil partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government".
In July, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern reiterated the promise to legislate for civil unions when opening the refurbished Outhouse Community Resource Centre in Dublin's Capel Street, but he did not give a timescale. The Government's legislative programme for the new Dáil term is due to be published shortly. Those campaigning for same-sex civil unions are hopeful that it will include civil-partnership legislation. Given their experience to date, they are entitled to be nervous. The gay and lesbian community has been here before. The struggle to decriminalise homosexuality in Ireland, although successful, was slow and tortuous. It took a 17-year legal battle by David Norris to get the issue sufficiently high up the political agenda.
When the European Court judgment in the Norris case declared the Irish law criminalising homosexuality contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1988, all of the main political parties responded with promises to change the law. However, nothing more happened for five years. It took the skill of one brave and progressive politician, the then minister for justice Máire Geoghegan Quinn, to get the change on the statute book in 1993.
The delay in giving equal recognition to same-sex unions suggests that the quality of that relationship is inferior and unworthy of legal recognition on a par with that acquired by heterosexual couples through marriage. For as long as this endures, equality is denied this community. If they want to, the Government could get away with delaying this legislation further, citing a backlog in parliamentary drafting, the demands on Dáil time, or the vagaries of the legal diary. The Government should resist this temptation and show real leadership.
If the issues around recognising cohabitation relationships between gay couples are too complex or costly for the exchequer to address now, then they should be disentangled from the issue of same-sex civil unions. The former involve people who could marry but choose not to do so, but the latter concerns people who want to do more than cohabit but are prevented from marrying.
This is not a programme for government commitment that should be implemented belatedly or begrudgingly. Where there is political will, a way can be found to get this legislation passed before the end of the year.