16th October, 2002
Dr. Henry: I support Senator Norris's motion and commend the Government on its amendment which does not take away from the motion. I am concerned by the possible suggestion that this project could, in any way, be an attack on the family because we must consider the fact that families are diverse in their composition. I speak as president of Cherish, an organisation set up in the early 1970s by single mothers for single mothers because it was believed that no such person existed in those days. Now many women rear children on their own.
We have to take into account that there is a diverse group of people whom we might describe as families. Frequently, two people of the same sex bring up children together as sometimes do people who are alone. I am concerned that sometimes the children concerned are disadvantaged because of our attitude. Senator Norris's motion encourages the idea that we must ensure all the nation's children are cherished equally, as stated in the Constitution.
There was a great deal of excitement following the announcement that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I remember I was asked to comment before I had the chance to read it. However, as has been pointed out, the purpose was that one member of a couple could adopt the other's children to ensure inheritance rights and so forth. What fascinates me is that such couples could so easily lie because single people can adopt children. One member of a couple could come forward to adopt a child. By encouraging a falsehood, they would be in a position to adopt, but if they came forward and honestly said they were a same sex couple, they would have problems with adoption.
We must be careful to encourage people to make honest declarations about their situation. This is causing problems in the case of young women claiming single mothers' allowance, even though there is a man living in the house who may be the father of the child. It is a good idea that children have two parents - I am a bit like Lady Bracknell in that regard. While I understand it being considered undesirable if both are drawing social welfare as it is felt one is drawing unfairly, one must also think of the common good. It is as well to allow a little leeway to encourage a stable relationship to be established.
Research was undertaken recently on pregnancy among teenagers and the figures are no greater now than they were in the 1970s. In the 1970s teenagers were briskly married off if they became pregnant. I will not enter a sociological discourse as to whether it is better that they should be married or stay single. However, we should recognise that if we are to encourage the welfare of children, in particular, we should remember that these relationships can be important and that it may work to the benefit of the child in the long term to perhaps occasionally turn a blind eye, which we are particularly good at doing in various situations.
Senator Walsh mentioned health. Many people in single sex relationships, or even before they became involved in relationships, realised that their sexual orientation was different from what was more publicly recognised which has caused dreadful stress and, in some cases, mental illness. The incidence of suicide is higher among teenagers or young people who feel they are gay. It is important we try to ensure we address the issue in a sympathetic way, as Senator Norris has tried to do. We should be up front and say it is important from a public health point of view.
I never understood the reason stability in gay relationships was not encouraged because from a health point of view it would be far better. I do not know how many Members have read the dreadful story of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in America, And the Band Played On. One could see where the marginalisation of the gay community allowed a situation to develop where there were more casual sexual relationships than there would have been if people had been permitted to be in stable relationships. That is one of the basic issues at which we have to look.
We are always trying to encourage constancy in heterosexual relationships. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we did the same in the case of same sex relationships. There has been a sixfold rise in heterosexual HIV infection in this country in recent years. Newly diagnosed cases, where men have had sex with men, have doubled since 1998, but have not increased as fast as the incidence among the heterosexual community. We should be careful not to minimise the importance of encouraging people to stay in monogamous relationships. Why should it just apply to heterosexual couples? I have never understood that. Encouraging stability in a community where relationships are between people of the same sex is important from a public health point of view. I commend Senator Norris on the motion.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
