It is separate. It is a recognition of marriage as an institution and what we are looking-----

What we are seeking to do is to ensure that those families based on marriage continue to have recognition in our Constitution, but we are looking to broaden it out to include other types of families as well. These are families we know and see in our everyday lives.

We want to ensure that they make continue to receive the protection of our Constitution. I believe that this is something-----

I beg to differ. It is an important step to give that valid and important constitutional recognition to the tens of thousands of people who are in committed relationships outside of marriage. We have the opportunity to make that change. Our Supreme Court is not going to make the change. We, as legislators, are putting that change to the people on 8 March and we have this opportunity to bring a "Yes" vote and broaden the definition of family in our society.

I am pleased to present the Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution (Care) Bill 2023 to the House this evening. I thank those who will participate in today’s debate for their continued interest in this significant proposition, which will give the Irish people the opportunity to vote at last on removing the outdated language related to the woman’s role in the home from our Constitution. In its place, the Government proposes recognising the care provided by families to one another, thereby expressly enshrining care as…

I thank the Acting Chairperson and I also thank Senators for the detailed consideration that they have given the proposals set out in the Bill. The issues we are discussing here are not new. The need, as articulated by many, to amend Article 41.2 to remove the archaic language from that provision has been discussed in many fora in Ireland through constitutional reviews and citizens' assemblies, and the need to take that action but, at the same time, recognising the value of care has also been acknowledged. That is …

I thank Deputy Tully for raising that important issue. She is absolutely right. The situation and the conditions that this child and her family found themselves in are unacceptable and it is important that these are published and publicised by the children's law reporting project. Since then, Tusla and the HSE have agreed a protocol for addressing the needs of children who are in care but who also have a disability. The two agencies were not co-operating well in these areas but a protocol is now in place that also …

Yes.

Yes. I will make that request.

It will not. There will be no recognition of polygamous marriages. Let us be very clear about that. That is not in any way the purpose. Perhaps when I speak to Deputy-----

It is an important question and I will come to it in detail when it comes around.

I thank all Deputies for their amendments and their contributions that allow us to discuss, I hope in real detail, the important constitutional changes we are making. Like other Deputies, I welcome the groups represented in the Gallery today. The National Women's Council is here, as are Family Carers Ireland and One Family, and those three organisations are all advocating two yes votes on 8 March. I assure Deputy Bríd Smith that the three Government parties will vigorously advocate for a yes-yes vote in all the mec…

The clear message is that our Constitution needs to reflect our values. Right now our Constitution does not reflect our values because it places women in a particular category and does not suggest that men or anybody else should be involved in the business of care. It excludes so many families from the recognition of the family in our Constitution. I remember that in 2015, when I was also in a situation in which I was forever excluded from access to the family through the institution of marriage, that was the drivi…

The Deputies' language does not deal with the issue of positive discrimination, though, and I think that needs to have a constitutional basis. Deputy Michael Collins is not here anymore, and I do not like addressing critiques of Deputies when they are not here, but he suggested that this amendment could bring in discrimination against various groups. Fundamentally, this amendment is about addressing discrimination, including the constitutional discrimination that tens of thousands of people in families that are not…

First of all, because polygamous relationships have never been recognised under Irish law and, secondly, because a polygamous relationship is not one that represents a fundamental unit group of society. It is not one that represents a moral institution in Irish law and it is not durable. The clear policy intention of the Government regarding polygamous relationships, and I have heard the word "throuples" being thrown around-----

Throuples.

That issue has come up in some of the debate. So we are clear, such a relationship is not covered in the concept of durability and it is not covered in the expanded concept of the family we are seeking to protect. We have these guardrails already in the Constitution. Putting durability in there adds to that. It is important in a context where we are making a significant and meaningful change that people can understand it is a change to allow our Constitution to encompass serious relationships. Deputy Clarke made an…

I will steer away. I thank the Deputy. It tries to speak to the nature of the relationship rather than its length. That is why the term "durable" was used.

Yes, absolutely. I could not have put it better myself. That quality exists in cohabitees' and child-parent relationships. Deputy McAuliffe raised the issue of the impact on immigration law. It is an important point to raise as I have seen it feature in the debate. The clear legal advice we received from the Attorney General is that there will be no legal impact on immigration law or, in particular, international protection law. It is likely the change will be cited in cases. It will probably be referenced. People …

In response to Deputy McNamara's questions, I remember when the definition of marriage was very much a legal question in Zappone and Gilligan v . the Revenue Commissioners and Others. At that point, the court would not include a same-sex couple who had a fully legal marriage in Canada in the Irish definition because it felt at that stage the definition of marriage and family in Irish law could not include such a relationship. The court was also very clear that a change of that magnitude was one to be made by the Oi…