IND
2024-01-17 · Dail
Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill 2023: Committee and Remaining Stages
Why?
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 58 of 393 decisive votes (7 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| IND | Independent | 1,426 | 2020-02-20 – 2024-07-11 |
| ?? | Not recorded | 5 | 2026-02-18 – 2026-02-18 |
Membership spells on record: LAB 2011-02-25–2015-05-29 · IND 2015-05-29–2015-09-16 · LAB 2015-09-16–2016-03-09 · IND 2020-02-08–2024-07-15
Why?
The word what?
Truffles?
Sorry. Throuples. I thought the Minister said "truffles". I wondered if there were truffles in the Dáil restaurant. Sorry.
Specifically in the context of family, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say, but I am none the wiser as to why he thinks this will not have an impact. We are changing the Constitution because we want to change the parameters of what is protected. We want to broaden the definition of a family that is protected and of relationships that are protected. On the one hand, the Minister stated that the protections of the Constitution are a shield that protect the rights of a family and on the other han…
We are making a change.
The reality is that we have absolutely no idea how this will be interpreted by the courts. We are making a change for the sake of it.
Durable will mean durable unless the durable relationship is a polygamous one, in which case it is durable but we are not going to recognise it because we do not like its durability.
I simply do not understand which durable relationships will and will not be recognised. Are we saying durable but not polygamous? If that is what we are saying in what we are voting for, does that include all durable relationships? That is what we are voting on. All durable relationships will, by definition, have to include both polygamous and monogamous durable relationships. I do not see how it could possibly be interpreted otherwise.
Are we saying that some marriages are moral institutions and some are not? Are we saying that those are that are monogamous are and those that are polygamous are not, even though they are, of course, moral institutions in other countries protected by-----
Equally it could be-----
Homosexual relationships were moral institutions but were illegal in Irish law, and they were struck down. Just because something is-----
We changed the Constitution, but before we did so the laws were changed and we had the Norris case in the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Just because something is not envisaged at a particular time does not mean that when we change the Constitution we change the meaning of the institutions. The Minister said he wanted to expand the protections for relationships that can avail of the shield of the family. The Minister wants to expand them, and I do not have a problem with that, but I want to understand where the Minister sees the limit of the relationships which do not currently enjoy the shield of the family but will enjoy the shield of the family a…
Would siblings who live together and have done for their entire life be covered?
Yes, we do-----
-----but we also had established case law to say that potentially polygamous marriages were incompatible and that changed because the courts can change their case law. Deputy Bacik knows that better than most that it changed very recently, in H.A.H. v. S.A.A.-----
-----where potentially polygamous marriages were found to be incompatible. I think the Minister would acknowledge that. The courts found they were no longer incompatible because of a move in what we accepted as morally acceptable.
I cannot accept Deputy Bacik's interventions.
Without what?