Dáil-watchers out there might have noticed that the Labour Party plan to reintroduce their Civil Unions Bill under private members’ time this week. The proposed legislation is a carbon copy of a measure they attempted to bring in during the last Dáil, when it had the support of the Greens. I’ll leave the question of the how the Governmental Greens might respond for now, but the bill itself should be very interesting.
For the moment ‘marriage’ is off the table as it might require a constitutional amendment. The Labour motion instead “would create a status relationship equivalent to marriage for the benefit of people who are of the same sex and who, under the current constitutional understanding of marriage, cannot marry each other. It provides that, in most respects, the rules of law applying to marriage will also apply to civil unions.”
This is an issue I’ve been thinking about since I participated in a Young Fine Gael discussion two years ago. At the time we were debating the merits of Senator Sheila Terry’s report on the issue of gay marriage. As I see it there are a number of questions starting with the state’s role in the institution of marriage. As a matter of public policy, I think the state has a responsibility to promote structures that encourage a respectful, inclusive community and families have always been the driving force behind that. In return for committing through marriage, couples are afforded a number of benefits from tax concessions on one side, to enhanced rights in areas such as adoption on the other.
However, I think there is a subtle distinction between these enhanced rights and other benefits. If two people are committed to one another, and through that commitment they can care for each other through ‘sickness and health’ then it is perfectly acceptable to give them a special status in our tax system. Personally I think marriage is too narrow a definition for this commitment as it not only excludes those involved in same sex relationships, but also long term-cohabiting couples, siblings who may live together into old age, or any other long-term interdependent relationship. I would support any legislation that acknowledges this principle – as I would expect would a majority of Irish people.
However, the thorny issues lie on the other side of the equation, especially around adoption rights. There are two different types of adoption that need to be considered. The first is the straightforward case of a same sex couple who want to adopt a child, but where neither is a biological parent. The second case is where one or other partner brings a child from a previous relationship.
The case of an existing biological relationship is perhaps more clear cut. If for example a same-sex couple jointly raise a child from a previous relationship, and the biological parent dies, then the other partner has no rights, even though they may have been an integral part of that child’s upbringing. Indeed the child may benefit greatly from the stability and certainty of remaining with the remaining partner.
But if same-sex parenting is acceptable in that scenario, then surely it should hold for all similar relationships, even when the adoptee has no biological relationship? I am still to be convinced on this one. The crucial difference between the two scenarios is the biological component (and for now I’m assuming that the child was born of a conventional pregnancy – not through surrogates). If the child is being cared for by a natural parent and their partner, then I think that the unrelated partner does acquire rights and responsibilities in loco parentis. However, I think that this is fundamentally different from a child being introduced to a same-sex relationship without any prior connection. My gut tells me, that the child has a superior right to a conventional upbringing over and above the right of a couple to have children. This may be due to social conditioning rather than any sophisticated philosophical viewpoint – but I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
So where does that leave me on the Labour motion? It really comes down to how much of ‘marriage’ makes a civil union. For now, I think that there is a moral imperative to widen the system of benefits but the key differentiator will be around children and adoption.
Hello. This was an interesting post. I’m left wondering what you mean by “conventional upbringing”. Is the upbringing of a child in an adoptive heterosexual marriages considered conventional by nature of the opposite sex relationship of the couple, despite how that couple may raise the adopted child? Is it possible for an adoptive heterosexual married couple to raise an adoptive child unconventionally? If so, is it logical to then assert that any adoptive married (or “civil-unioned”)couple (same sex or opposite sex) who have the potential for raising an adoptive child unconventionally should not be allowed to adopt?
I guess I’m trying to understand if you are suggesting that “convention” be the litmus test. I’m also wondering what “convention” means…what it looks like.
Hi Darrow – thanks for the comment. I guess I’m using ‘conventional’ as short hand for a male-female, mother-father type of relationship with a child, while a same-sex set of parents would be ‘unconventional’. As such I don’t see that a civil-union heterosexual couple would have less adoption rights than a similar married couple. However, I think that would imply a graduated notion of civil unions which raises lots of other problems.
My preference would be to use civil unions as purely a means of expanding the basis that the state can use to afford benefits in areas like inheritance, succession and tax reliefs. I would separate adoption entirely from these benefits.
In terms of adoption, I would place children at the center of the adoption process. My inner egalitarian says that the best approach is to avoid an automatic disqualification based on the genders of the adopting couple, and instead view a case on its merits, though I would still be minded towards a significant bias towards heterosexual parents.
For those who are interested – the Government have side-stepped the issue by announcing that they intend to publish their own draft legislation in the spring. That gives the Greens an opportunity to vote against it while still being in favour of the overall thrust.
The related issues of gay marriage and gay adoption are indeed highly complex. As you may know, Catholic adoption agencies in the UK are now closing down as a result of the recent Equality Act which, they feel, would compel them to accept gay couples as potential adopters.
My own view is that you can consider it as a vocation for some gay persons to adopt children (if there really are no straight couples who would genuinely be better for those children), whether or not those children are related to either of the adopters. Consider the case of a gay guy who became an adoptive father while previously married to a woman (as happens occasionally). Your example of that man’s subsequent gay partner / husband also developing parental rights and responsibilities applies in this case, too, not just in the case of biological parenthood. And biological parenthood is only one part of true parenthood, which is emotional and spiritual in its nature and calling. Gay persons are just as capable of fulfilling that sort of vocation to parenthood as straight persons.
It’s more important that a child should have two parents, of whatever gender, that love them and devote themselves to that child, than that child should have no parents – as could be the consequence of adoption agencies turning away willing gay adopters. That’s not to say it isn’t preferable in most cases for those two parents to be a man and woman. In most cases – but certainly not all.
I’ve written quite extensively on these subjects at http://culturalcritique-david.blogspot.com/. Follow the links to ‘gay adoption’ and ‘marriage’.
That’s a very thoughtful analysis David. I think that part of the problem in Ireland is that these issues are yet to be properly discussed, so the language of the debate needs to develop (your point about an adopted child from a previous relationship proves this as it shows that my use of ‘biological’ is too narrow).
As I said in the response to Darrow’s comment, my preference would be to focus on what’s best for the child, and while I believe that a child benefits most from a male-female set of parents, I wouldn’t use a couple’s genders as an automatic barrier to adoption.
I’ll check in on your own posts later in the day.