Master Thesis
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son: Marriage Equality and the Catholic Church in Ireland
Helen Meaney
Supervisor: Christina Bergqvist Year: Autumn 2016 Words: 13 869 Points: 15
Abstract This thesis will use the final Marriage Equality Referendum debate which took place on the Irish national broadcaster RTÉ in May 2015 and analyse the No campaign’s willingness to be associated with the Catholic Church through discourse and framing analysis. This qualitative study aspires to ascertain the salience of the Catholic Church to the Irish electorate in areas of moral-social policy in Ireland. It will be found that substantial Catholic identification and high levels of religiosity does not necessitate influence of the Church over the electorate.
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms...... 1
Irish Titles ...... 1
Introduction ...... 2
Aims and Research Question ...... 3
Disposition ...... 5
Literature Review ...... 6
Theory ...... 11
Research Question ...... 16
Methodology ...... 19
Case Selection and Primary Source Analysis ...... 19
Research Limitations ...... 19
RTÉ Debate ...... 20
Framing Analysis ...... 25
Discourse Analysis ...... 25
The Campaign ...... 26
Conclusion ...... 30
Bibliography ...... 32
Addendum ...... 36 List of Acronyms
EVS European Values Survey GLEN Gay and Lesbian Equality Network ICCL Irish Council for Civil Liberties ISSP International Social Survey Programme RTÉ Radió Teilifís Éireann TD Teachta Dála USI The Union of Students in Ireland
Irish Titles
Bunreacht na hÉireann The Constitution of Ireland Dáil Éireann The lower house of the Oireachtas (‘the Dáil) Éire Ireland Fianna Fáil An Irish political party Fine Gael An Irish political party Radió Teilifís Éireann The national public broadcaster in Ireland Seanad Éireann The upper house of the Oireachtas (‘the Seanad’) Tánaiste Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland Taoiseach Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland Teachta Dála A TD is a member of Dáil Éireann The Oireachtas The Irish Parliament
1
Introduction Modern democracies are increasingly considered to be free from religious jurisdiction. This preconception is challenge by numerous studies which suggest otherwise, highlighting the influences of religion on policies and legislation (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014; Knill 2013; Knill and Preidel 2015; Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2013; Mooney and Schuldt 2008; Fink 2009). The Republic of Ireland has a heritage of strong church-state relations with the Catholic Church; the state’s laws and society often reflect the Church’s influence. To this day the Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hÉireann, is opened with the preamble:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, (“Bunreacht Na hÉireann” 2016) As noted by Chrystel Hug, law and morality overlapped in the Irish constitution and the Church teachings were indoctrinated into civil authority (Hug 2001). In drawing much of its social and moral policy from Catholic teachings, Bunreacht na hÉireann established an enduring church- state relationship in Ireland for the resulting decades. Particular passages ‘accorded family, marriage and mothers a key place’(Canavan 2012, 19). Article 41.3.1 of the Irish constitution stated that:
‘The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack’. (“Bunreacht Na hÉireann” 2016, 164) The Catholic Church in Ireland has, from the formation of the Irish Republic, been a central power player in the state’s society and politics. An example of the Church’s enduring influence in the state can be noted through the fact that Catholic Bishops are still patrons of 95% of the primary schools in Ireland (Inglis 2007). Some suggest that the Church through education has been able to maintain its symbolic domination and pass its teachings and rituals on to each new generation (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 6).
In the final decades of the 20th century the Irish State made great strides in separating the Church and State. Much of the Catholic Church’s influence on social policy is today restricted to the Church’s legacy in the foundation of the Irish State and Constitution. In 2015 the Irish government held a referendum to change the Irish constitution to allow for marriage equality; same-sex marriage in addition to opposite-sex marriage. Given the Catholic nature of the Irish state, and population, the introduction of marriage equality was never a certainty
2 regardless of world trends illustrating increased favourability to the introduction of marriage equality. However, despite the high religiosity of the Irish populace, and legacy of the Catholic Church’s influence, Ireland became the first state in the world to introduce marriage equality through popular vote.
This thesis explores whether the influence of Catholicism in Irish politics remains. The work below will aim to understand the power, if any, the Catholic Church in Ireland has in swaying constitutional change in the Church’s favour through use of high religiosity and referenda.
Aim and Research Questions The aim of this thesis is to shed light on the social and political influence held by the Catholic Church in Ireland. Irish State politics, typically viewed as socially conservative, produced a result that was contrary to the religiosity of its voting populous and a first in terms of marriage equality worldwide. This thesis will seek to appraise the Marriage Equality referendum in terms of the importance that the Catholic Church hierarchy and teachings had on the electorate’s voting preference. In turn, this appraisal will hope to flesh out the influence Catholicism has in shaping Irish social policy now and going forward.
As stated above, several articles in the Irish Constitution hold the last remnants of the Catholic Church’s influence over state social policies and laws. A constitutional referendum, approved by a simple majority of those voting, is required to ratify any amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann. This provision originated from the 1922 Constitution of Ireland and was ‘perceived at the time as a conscious reaction against the British style of cabinet government which, Irish nationalists believed, gave too much weight to the executive over the parliament and the people’ (O’Mahony 1998, 225). Irish citizens have thus far voted on thirty-one proposals to amend the constitution, twenty-three of which have been accepted (Farrell 2013). It is important to recognise that ‘in Ireland, Catholic morality was as central to the development of both state law and state politics as it was to the personal development of the individual’ (Hug 2001, 24). During the first half-century of the Irish state ‘questions of what the family is and does were provided by a state that took its lead from the Catholic Church’ (Canavan 2012, 10).
Religiosity in Ireland remains high with the majority of the electorate identifying as Catholic. As the Constitution can only be amended by a referendum and the majority of those eligible to vote are Catholic, it would appear that the remnants of the Church’s influence in
3
Ireland’s social policies and laws would likely remain; the status quo being assured by the religiosity of the electorate.
Many such referendums on these social ‘moral’ articles have taken place in Ireland; the results often falling into line with the Church’s preference. The introduction of divorce was divisive, the Irish voting twice in referenda on the subject; first in 1986 and then again in 1995 (O’Leary and Hesketh 2007; Tobin 2016). In 1995 divorce legislation was passed by a tiny margin. The first abortion referendum was held in 1983 and with a turnout of 53.7%, two thirds voted in favour of the 8th amendment outlawing abortions in Ireland (Kennedy 2010; O’Mahony 1998; Johansen 2003). In 1992 Ireland again voted and passed amendments on the topic of abortion which allowed the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information on abortion facilities outside the state. This was called an ‘Irish solution to an Irish problem’ (Kennedy 2010, 120). To the present day Ireland has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.
Many argue that the constitution has been used by successive Irish governments to avoid their responsibilities in regards to moral and social rights. In the 32 years since the 8th Amendment Ireland has seen ‘protest, litigation and a flight of abortion-seeking women from the country; it has allowed the political system to systematically abdicate responsibility for the responsible regulation of reproductive freedom in Ireland’ (Enright et al. 2015, 2). In the decades passed ‘irrespective of which political party held office, it was held that people in Ireland deferred to the teachings of the Church to an extent found only, perhaps, in certain Latin countries’ (O’Leary and Hesketh 2007, 43). Thus, ‘changes is Irish law came about some twenty years or more after corresponding legislation in other western countries’ (Hug 2001, 25); these changes are still taking place today and can tell us a lot about the position of the Catholic Church as a power player in the politics and laws of the modern Irish state.
Hence, the passage of the Marriage Equality referendum in Ireland came to some as a surprise. This largely Catholic Irish electorate by a significant margin introduced same-sex marriage in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church. Although many factors assuredly played a role in the resulting vote this thesis focuses upon the Catholic element of the electorate. This thesis wishes to establish what influence, if any, the Catholic Church has in influencing the laity in their democratic vote. More precisely, this thesis looks to establish the moral authority the Irish Catholic Church wields over the laity as well as the institutional Church’s ‘voice’ in matter of social and moral policy. Does this voice resonate with the majority Catholic electorate? If salience of the Church’s moral authority is not found, then has Catholicism’s 4 power in influencing Irish social policies and laws been diminished or even eradicated in the modern era?
To understand the influence, the Catholic Church holds over the Irish electorate, one of the main questions of this thesis looks to decipher how comfortable the No proponents of the live referendum debate are with association to the Catholic Church. As the No debater’s position aligns with Catholic Church teaching it is plausible that their arguments would be associated or enhanced through the use of the Catholic Church’s position, official statements and religious teachings. This is even more probable given the fact that Ireland consistently has high levels of religiosity in comparison to their European brethren.
If the No campaign largely ignores or distances itself from association with the Catholic Church and its teachings, why this is the case will also need to be considered. One could argue that a lack of association by the No campaign with the Catholic Church indicates that the Church holds little weight in the electorate’s decision on how to cast their vote. One could also argue that reference to the Church is perceived as negatively impacting a campaign which is focused on social policy. The debate analysis will attempt to uncover whether the Catholic Church holds any real persuasive power over the Irish electorate.
Additionally, how a state with high religiosity and a Catholic population readily voted in significant numbers to introduce marriage equality will be touched upon in a brief analysis of the referendum campaign. This brief analysis aims to bolster any results from the debate analysis and help to solidify any findings that emerge in regard to Church salience in social policy through referenda in the Irish State.
Disposition This thesis will be divided into several parts. The first section is a literature review followed by the second section which will outline the theory, research aims and limitations of this work. The third section analyses how the marriage equality referendum and television debate unfolded. The fourth and final section will provide conclusions.
5
Literature Review An assessment of the Irish Catholic Church’s influence on the referendum process and moral policy legislation, covered by the Constitution, has not been undertaken. The objective of this thesis is to consider the influence of Catholicism and the Church’s moral authority in influencing the electorate’s vote in the Marriage Equality referendum.
The Catholic moral order rests on an ideology that ‘condemns individualism on the one hand, and emphasises the primacy of the duties that the individual has’ to God on the other (Hug 1999, 3). The practices of contraception, abortion, homosexuality and divorce are understood to corrupt society because ‘they undermine the family, the institution on which moral order is built, the basic unit of society whose main function is to maintain order, economically as well as ideologically’ (Hug 1999, 3). Marriage in accordance with Catholic Church teachings is heterosexual, monogamous, indissoluble and where possible procreative.
The Catholic Church vehemently opposes the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and it describes homosexuality as a sin; there has been no change in the Church’s standpoint on the matter. The Church understands the ‘state-sanctioned ability for same-sex couples to register their cohabitation and enter into civil marriage as a violation of Natural Law and traditional Christian family values’ (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 849–59; Knill and Preidel 2015). In the Catholic faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament which is the foundation for families and society; its function and aim is to ensure the survival of humanity. Homosexual intercourse and same-sex unions are thus considered a threat to these moral values (Knill and Preidel 2015; Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014). The Vatican has expressed opposition to a trend toward endorsing same-sex unions in EU policies (Carozza and Philpott 2012, 37). It can therefore be attested that Catholic Church teachings and hierarchy widely oppose any recognition of same- sex marriage. The Irish Catholic Church’s leadership called for a No vote in the Marriage Equality referendum.
As Ireland is a secular state system this means that change in morality issues is typically slower and often less permissive. The strong Irish executive offers only limited political leverage for the Catholic Church (Knill and Preidel 2015). However, this weakness of the Church’s political influence speaks to ordinary legislative introduction and not to constitutional amendments which require referenda. Fink’s understanding that the basal determinant for the mobilisation potential of churches is the number of adherents. The proportion of the electorate that churches can theoretically mobilise is important when considering the potential influence
6 that the Catholic Church in Ireland may yield in a moral referendum campaign. In terms of concrete mobilisation potential, Fink argues that, the more religious the adherents are, the more they are willing to act politically for religious causes (Fink, 2009). Therefore, while the Catholic Church in Ireland does not have much power in influencing the majority of legislation passed, it can, through the sheer amount of Irish who identify as Catholic and the level of religiosity of the Irish population, have the potential to wield great political influence.
In the 2011 census 84% of the Irish population still identified as Roman Catholic (Tobin 2016, 125). This is down from the 2002 census in which 90% of the population identified themselves as Catholic. It is clear that the number of citizens who identify as Catholic in Ireland meet the criteria discussed by Fink of being sizeable enough to effect a referendum vote. If even half of those who identify as Catholic in Ireland vote in accordance to their religious affiliation an impact on a referendum result could be made.
Fink also points to religiosity suggesting that the more religious a population the more prone said population are in voting in accordance to their religious affiliation. Tom Inglis notes that most Irish Catholics are still born into the Church, baptised and socialised into its beliefs and practices; the vast amount of children in the country attend Catholic primary and secondary schools (Inglis 2007, 205). Inglis found that Irish Catholics have some of the highest levels of religious belief and practice in Europe. Using the European values survey (EVS) the figures for 1999 illustrated that 95% of Irish Catholics considered it important to have a religious service for birth, marriage and death while 84% of the total number of births in Ireland in 2002 resulted in Catholic baptisms (Inglis 2007, 209). In 2008 the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) showed that almost all respondents who were raised Catholic (93%) still claimed this affiliation (Nic Ghiolla Phadraig 2009). If religious adherence and affiliation in Ireland is compared to international standards, Ireland is considered to still have very high religious affiliation and belief as of 2008 (Nic Ghiolla Phadraig 2009; Inglis 2007, 207).
Several scholars have begun to look at Irish religiosity closer, beyond simply that of Catholic identity, mass attendance and interaction with religious ceremonies, arguing that modern Irish Catholicism has undergone complex change. Although religiosity remains comparatively high in a European context many studies point to a changing confidence and trust in the Church (Canavan 2012, 22; Fuller 2012, 484). Donnelly and Inglis suggested that in the 1990s institutional religiosity, church attendance and trust in the Church began to decline and by ‘1999 Ireland had on average the lowest levels of trust in the Church than any of the other Catholic European countries’ examined in her study (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 12). Knill 7 and Preidel agree that there is a loss of meaning for the institutionalised Catholic faith in Ireland (Knill and Preidel 2015).
Between 1981 to 2008 Ireland appeared to become increasingly wealthy; the Celtic Tiger period was ‘one of significant economic and social upheaval in which dramatic changes occurred not only in patterns of religious belief and practice, but also in attitudes towards issues considered to be contrary to the traditional teachings and moral norms of the Church’ (Ó Féich and O’Connell 2015, 231–32). This wealth has been suggested to have brought about a new questioning society, and media, in regards to the traditional authority of the Catholic Church and its teachings.
The Irish media has in the past devoted a great amount of space and time to the Catholic Church. The Irish Times devoted several pages to newly published Papal Encyclicals and RTÉ, to the present day, broadcasts on radio and television the bells of the Angelus prayer at noon and at 6pm before the news (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 5–6). However, in the 1990s the media in Ireland began to investigate religious clergy and the media coverage of sex scandals, particularly those dealing with Clerical Child Sexual Abuse, rose dramatically. As suggested by Donnelly and Inglis the Church and its priests ‘quickly went from being represented as paragons of virtue, as self-sacrificing national heroes, to being depicted as self-serving masters of evil’ (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 2). The Catholic Church hierarchy has been met with a huge amount of criticism over their handling of the Clerical Child Sexual Abuse revelations. In 2009 The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Report contained testimonies of ‘systematic emotional and physical and sexual abuse of children in schools and care facilities in the state’ the majority of the schools were run by the Church (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 2). This and earlier reports have shocked many Irish citizens and, alongside ‘the long-running political tensions about the links between law, the constitution, sexual morality and Catholic moral doctrine’, have arguably contributed to a loss in trust in the institution of the Catholic Church in Ireland (Canavan 2012, 22; Gray 2015; O’Mahony 1998; Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014; Ó Féich and O’Connell 2015).
As far as sexual morality is concerned a large number of Irish Catholics have begun to think for themselves overriding disciplinary norms and rejecting the Church’s moral authority; most conservative pro-life and anti-divorce groups have generally become a minority voting block (Hug 2001, 40). It is clear that Catholic identity and levels of belief remain high but several studies indicate that a massive decline has occurred in orthodox adherence to institutional rules and regulations (Inglis 2007). The decline in institutional involvement could 8 be linked to the changing position of women, particularly mothers, who are less dependent on religious capital having access to other forms of capital (Inglis 2007; Hug 1999).
Belief and affiliation does not ensure trust and institutional affiliation suggesting that the moral authority of the Catholic Church in Ireland is not assured and the potential influence the Church has is in doubt. It could be argued that the Irish are becoming what Donnelly and Inglis have called Creative Catholics; Catholic who choose which beliefs and practices to adhere to but also mix Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs, creating a made to measure belief system (Donnelly and Inglis 2010, 237). Louise Fuller writes that the Irish have turned to à la Carte Catholicism meaning that they pick and choose Church teachings to abide to rather than taking direction from the Church clergy and hierarchy as before (Fuller 2012). While the numbers of those identifying as Catholic, and religiosity in terms of belief, remain strong, acceptance of the Church as an institution, particularly in respect to trust in the Catholic Church, has vastly changed over the last few decades.
Pádraig Ó Féich and Micheal O’Connell found that there is growing support for the privatisation of religion and morality. They conclude from their analysis of the EVS that the results indicate institutional detachment rather than secularisation (Ó Féich and O’Connell 2015). Concluding that in Ireland ‘the decline in religious practice and institutional attachment was far greater than the decline in personal belief suggesting that for many religion was becoming more personal and private’ (Ó Féich and O’Connell 2015, 233). What is occurring is not believing without belonging, as the high levels of belief suggest that the Irish are not becoming irreligious. Inglis cites in agreement that the continued high levels of belief, identification as a religious person and importance granted to religion suggests that, in Ireland, a process of institutional detachment rather than secularisation may be a more appropriate explanation (Inglis 2007, 208). Inglis goes on to state that ‘the majority of Irish Catholics still see and understand themselves as Catholics, have a strong sense of belonging and loyalty to a catholic heritage’ (Inglis 2007, 217).
In Ireland over 80% of the electorate identifies as Catholic and religiosity is high. As Gindulis suggests provisions for direct democracy may prevent liberalisation efforts by the legislature (Gindulis in Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 849). Both the legalisation of homosexual relations and same-sex marriage have been hindered by the articles in the Irish Constitution. The Irish Free State incorporated British common and statute law, thus the 1861 Offences against the Persons Act and the 1885 Labouchere Amendement remained intact and homosexuality was a criminalized offence (Mulhall, n.d.). This was still the case by the late 9
1980s when Denmark began to recognised same-sex partnerships (Knill and Preidel 2015). In 1974 David Norris began a campaign to take action against the state on the grounds that the law infringed upon his constitutional rights. In 1988 the European Court of Human Right found that Norris’ right to privacy had been infringed according to the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Irish law would have to be reformed’ (Mulhall, n.d.; Hug 2001; Murphy 2016). Five years later, on the 7th of July 1993 the Criminal Law (sexual offences) act was enacted which removed the criminal ban on homosexual activity in Ireland (Murphy 2016; Mulhall, n.d.; Tobin 2016; Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016).
In 2004 Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan sought to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland following the Revenue Commissioners decision that tax law relating to married couples was confined to a ‘husband’ and a ‘wife’ only (Tobin 2016). The High Court found, through the constitution and common law, that marriage in Ireland was understood to be between a man and a woman (Mulhall, n.d.). A Fianna Fáil/Green coalition government proposed and, in 2010, adopted a civil partnership bill enabling same-sex couples in Ireland to register their relationship and enable additional rights in social and inheritance law; the bill would radically alter the perception of lesbian and gay relationships becoming an ‘important catalyst for marriage and family recognition’(Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 15; Knill and Preidel 2015). However the non-recognition of children of same-sex parents remained alongside the clear absence of access to marriage as a social institution (Mulhall, n.d.).
There have been several studies by scholars concerning the marriage equality referendum in 2015 (Murphy 2016; Elkink et al. 2015; Tobin 2016). Brian Tobin argues that the referendum was unnecessary but he includes that the Yes result was ‘a repudiation of the Catholic Church’s outmoded views on homosexuality’ (Tobin 2016, 155, 128). The book ‘Ireland Says Yes’ was written by those who headed the Yes campaign in Ireland and documents the referendum campaign in its entirety. They present strategies used by the Yes campaign which aided their success in achieving a Yes result (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016). A UCD study remarks that ‘the balance of opinion along the liberal conservative cleavage has been transformed since the 1980s with a liberal majority in evidence across all social classes, regions and genders’ (Elkink et al. 2015, 23). The study illustrates how significantly vigorous and active the campaign was and that turnout by the electorate increased enormously compared to previous elections, with former cleavages in Irish referendum campaigns being weakened and lessened. However, the above studies do not speak to Catholicism’s role or impact on the vote nor to the salience of the Church’s voice on social and
10 moral issues in contemporary Ireland. Ana Covaciu’s thesis submitted to Uppsala University in 2015 looked at the change in three informal institutions of marriage, the family and religion through the case of the same-sex marriage referendum. She found that the institutions of marriage and the family were strong whereas the institution of the Church was in decline (Covaciu, 2015).
When it comes to referenda religiosity can play a major role and afford a church great powers in deciding the outcome. In considering the changing nature of Irish Catholicism and the loss of trust and affiliation towards the institutional church the question remains as to whether Catholicism in Ireland can influence the result of a moral referendum such as the marriage equality referendum.
Theory To understand the influence that the Catholic Church has on moral policies in Ireland it is imperative to turn to scholars who have conducted research in the areas of religion and the state, religiosity and morality politics. As this thesis will consider the 2015 marriage equality referendum in Ireland it is crucial to consider research of moral referenda’s and the Marriage referendum and legislation in regards to homosexuality in general.
Some scholars have researched the influence of religion in policy making; in particular, the Protestant and Catholic states in Europe and the marked differences in policy and legislative liberalisation. Christoph Knill, Caroline Preidel and Kerstin Nebel argue that religious influence on public policy can unfold through a range of different channels including confessional parties, religious interest groups, public opinion or the historical institutional configuration of the relationship between church and state (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014). Fink has found that it is theoretically fruitful to conceive of churches as societal veto players asserting that the Catholic Church does wield political power in a national context. Fink is concerned with ‘how religion influences everyday policy making in supposedly ‘secular’ western societies’ (Fink 2009, 77). Fink’s article suggests that churches can be included in actor-centred political analysis particularly when discussing a churches influence on referenda or the presence of religious parties (Fink 2009). Fink understands churches to have special veto points in relation to referenda, considering referendums to serve as amplifiers of Church power. Because of its potential to mobilise and the cohesive nature of the Catholic Church, Fink concludes that the
11
Catholic Church is more powerful than most Protestant churches in acting as a ‘societal-veto power’ (Fink 2009).
Knill, Preidel and Nebel define moral policies as ‘issues in which political conflicts are shaped by debates over values rather than instrumental considerations of policy design’ (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 847). They discuss how moral policies can reinforce or oppose religious dogmas and theological doctrine, therefore ‘the influence of religious institutions on morality issues should be more pronounced than in other policy areas’ (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 847). Other scholars outline specific issues that are considered morality issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, embryo research and assisted reproductive technology; policies concerning these topics will by these scholars be considered morality based (Knill 2013). Knill suggests that regulation of value conflicts where the decisions appear to be about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can be considered morality policies (Knill 2013, 309). Defining morality policies can also be linked to how much an issue is framed in the language of moral principles (Knill 2013; Mucciaroni 2011). Gary Mucciaroni argues that ‘we should distinguish morality policy from other policies by how political actors frame issues rather than by its substantive content (Mucciaroni 2011, 187). A policy can have a moral frame administered to it when adherence to moral principles above instrumental considerations is argued. Whereas non-morality frames emphasize a rational instrumental view where policies are discussed regarding their potential to achieve certain objectives (Knill 2013, 311).
Knill, Preidel and Nebel have written about the religious effects on same-sex partnership policies. They examine the level of permissiveness in such policies throughout Western Europe and they find that there is no difference between Catholic and Protestant states in regard to policy outputs. However their research does suggest that states where Catholicism is prominent may result in lagging reforms stating ‘the Catholic Church may impede reforms so long as institutional and cultural opportunity structures do not promote secular efforts to politicise the issue and build consensus for policy change’ (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 845). Engeli et al. stresses that although the role of religious actors, such as the Roman Catholic Church, in morality policies has been gaining attention the findings are mixed. She states that ‘much is determined upon the precise moral policy and the relationship between church and state’ (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2013, 338–39).
The changing role and weakening of religion in Europe is often assumed to have contributed to the shift towards more permissive policies. Yet, as explained by Engeli et al., the growing permissiveness of policies in European states is not so clearly causal and follows a 12 more indirect puzzle. The growing permissiveness of morality policies in Europe is illustrated by Engeli et al. to be driven by a line of conflict between secular and confessional parties (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2013). Knill et al. also discuss how the existence of confessional parties facilitates rather than restricts the probability of permissive policies being adopted and such parties ensure that moral policies become politicised (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014). In fact Engeli et al. argue that ‘what matters is the presence or absence of confessional forces in the party system, not the degree of religiosity or the particular denomination in a given country’ (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2013, 349). However, Engeli et al. are discussing placing morality issues on the political agenda rather than referenda. They discuss how in the secular world system ‘policy processes on morality issues are distinctively different’ as there is no significant conflict on the political forum between the secular and confessional parties.
‘From the macro-perspective, religiosity and the religious denomination of the electorate can be considered to be proxies for the values prevalent in society and are thus regarded as critical for understanding political choices on moral issues’ (Knill, Preidel, and Nebel 2014, 847). One of the characteristics of Christian churches as powerful political actors, that can impact society and policies outputs, is their potential for mobilisation; ‘power stems from their mobilisation potential, which is dependent on their religiosity of the electorate’ (Fink 2009, 78). A Church’s ability to mobilise its adherents for political action, such as collective action in the form of voting behaviour, is paramount to their political influence. Fink states that the basal determinant for the mobilisation potential of churches is the number of adherents; the proportion of the electorate that churches can theoretically mobilise (Fink 2009). In terms of concrete mobilisation potential Fink argues that ‘the more religious the adherents are, the more are they willing to act politically for religious causes’ (Fink 2009, 81). Fink has pointed out that the most powerful political tools, which can be used by churches, are referendums. Referendums can be used to overturn passed laws, but can also be used anticipatively. A threat of a referendum can change the policy making process because legislators try to calculate the risk of a law being overturned designing their proposals accordingly. The importance of referendums for the churches is evident as they can use the referendum to overturn existing laws if the religiosity of the electorate is favourable (Fink 2009).
The Catholic Church in modern Ireland influences the moral and social legislations through several avenues. Firstly, through historical infrastructure of education, healthcare and social welfare. Secondly, the remaining articles of the constitution which were heavily
13 influenced by the Catholic Church’s moral teachings continue to influence the structure of Irish society and laws today. There was also a Catholic dimension to the pressure groups who successfully oppose government initiatives of the abortion and divorce referendums (O’Leary and Hesketh 2007).
Discourse analysis and framing tools will be implemented to ascertain the salience of the Catholic Church, as a leader and organisation, which can be trusted in questions of morality and social policy. Framing has been written about and used extensively. Susan Olzak states that ‘framing theory emphasize the internal perspective of movements’ own meaning-making strategies’ (Olzak 1992, 199). Xigen Li and Xudong Liu state that to frame is ‘to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’ (Li and Liu 2010, 75). For Li and Liu framing involves selection and salience. How an issue is framed by the person, movement or media has been selected to portray a certain view or aspect of an issue. Issues are framed to catch the attention of those reading or listening to one’s argument. ‘The influences of framing refers to the notion that different frames can lead to different responses among the public’ (Li and Liu 2010, 76); there is power in a frame, chosen and used, and this power can be indicative of what the frame user considers a receptive, popular and conducive frame. ‘In their efforts to build support for (or opposition to) a policy, policy entrepreneurs develop and disseminate issue frames that they estimate will have the greatest impact on an audience whose support they see as vital to bringing about their preferred outcome’ (Mucciaroni 2011, 195). The choice or omission of a certain frame or argument can be telling of what the actor considers to be a helpful position for persuasion.
Framing and discourse analysis can be used to analyse debates, discussions, and media in general to illustrate what campaigns or individuals portray as important through the line of argumentation they follow. Mucciaroni discusses the difference between Moral Principles and Instrumentally Rational frames; moral principles will speak of discrimination or right and wrong whereas instrumentally rational frames will talk of actual or expected outcomes. Governmental morality frames will portray the actions or inactions of public officials or agencies as right or wrong, good or bad (Mucciaroni 2011). It should be kept in mind that when opponents use morality frames they can also focus on the prospect of government threatening religious freedom and freedom of association (Mucciaroni 2011, 200). Mucciaroni challenges the assumption that advocates of a morality issue frame morality policy issues by simply
14 engaging in moralistic discourse that reflects their basic beliefs and values; ‘opponents usually do not frame gay rights issues in terms of the morality of homosexuality or religious injunctions against it’ (Mucciaroni 2011, 187).
Stephen Engel’s study shows how in America the decriminalisation of homosexuality was couched in the language and framed around the subject of marriage, to which the population did not agree, rather than the right being claimed at that moment – the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Engel thus introduces the concept of frame of spillover where actors focus on a distinct and not widely supported rights claim which can be connected to the issue at hand. Using frame spillover distracts an audience from the issue under discussion encouraging the audience to think of resulting consequences of the issue. Engel shows that the media discussion of one rights claim may affect public perceptions of others; ‘the frame that focused attention on the claim to same sex marriage, which at the time the majority of Americans were uncomfortable with, ‘created a negative spillover effect, fostering a decline in support of a range of otherwise distinguishable rights and claims wholly separable from marriage recognition’ (Engel 2013, 430). Engel argues that the dynamic of frame ‘spillover’ raises important implications for studying how public discourse about LGBT rights develops over time as ‘overtly antigay messaging may no longer effectively shape public opinion’; much of the rhetoric has shifted to covert rhetoric’ (Engel 2013, 430).
In previous Irish moral referendums key issues have arisen such as the Family and Motherhood. Some sections of Irish society felt in 1995 that the introduction of divorce was ‘putting at risk the family, the basic traditional unit of Irish society’ and ‘anything that threatened the family was seen to threaten the stability of society, and the nation as a whole’ (Hug 2001, 25). Brian Tobin argues that in the Constitution the Family was solely founded on the institution of Marriage and is a ‘necessary condition for a group of persons to constitute a family unit protected by Art 41’ in Ireland (Tobin 2016, 117). The importance marriage and family holds in Irish society and culture was one of the main arguments for or against the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2015.
15
Research Question This thesis aims to understand the weight the Catholic Church can wield in the formation of morality policies in the Irish state. One of the avenues available for the Catholic Church to influence morality policies in the state is through direct democracy; as the Irish electorate is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Fink argues that the higher religiosity of an electorate, which acts as a power resource for churches, the more influence said Church will have on public policy (Fink 2009, 82). The public policy also matters in Fink’s explanation; he argues that the topic must matter to the Church in question which can be understood from Church statements. Homosexuality and public policy clearly matter to the Catholic Church in Ireland who have been vocal about the topic for the past number of decades. This would suggest that if a referendum on an amendment to introduce same-sex marriage was put to an Irish electorate that the proposal would not be accepted by the majority. Yet as we have seen the Irish electorate approved, with a significant margin, the introduction of same-sex marriages.
Thus, as suggested by Hug ‘the virtual ‘moral monopoly’ held by the Catholic Church has yielded to a multiplicity of values and styles of life’ (Hug 2001, 25). This more complex understanding of Irish religiosity suggests that the institutional Catholic Church in Ireland and much of the Catholic laity in Ireland are at odds. This leaves a question mark over the power held by the Catholic Church in influencing the Irish electorate in referenda despite 84% of the population identifying as Catholic as of 2011. What this thesis proposes, in line with the above authors findings, is that Irish religiosity remains largely high but that trust and respect in the institution of the Catholic Church has diminished significantly. This diminished trust in the Church has resulted in the largely Catholic Irish electorate rejecting the moral authority and teachings of the Catholic Church in favour of their own moral reasoning; such a shift has removed one of the last areas in which the Catholic Church holds political weight in regards to policy in Ireland.
This thesis will use the final Marriage Equality referendum debate which took place on the national broadcaster RTÉ three days before the electorate went to vote. To understand the influence, the Catholic Church holds over the Irish electorate, one of the main questions of this thesis looks to decipher how comfortable the No proponents of the live RTÉ debate are with association to the Catholic Church. As the No debater’s position aligns with Catholic Church teaching any avoidance in being associated with the Catholic Church can indicate that the market research had denoted that such an argument was unfavourable with the viewing public.
16
In attempting to persuade the viewing public to their point of view the No campaign’s rational should reflect what the Irish electorate finds important.
Association of the No campaign with the Catholic Church in the final televised RTÉ debate prior to the referendum can be considered through both framing and discourse analysis. Firstly, what an actor says in public ‘should reveal what arguments they believe will have the greatest political impacts’ (Mucciaroni 2011, 196). It is important to decipher what frames are being used by the No campaign as this can indicate what they perceive to be convincing to the public. What the No campaign consider as persuasive is thus reflective of the state of religiosity in Ireland and in turn the power the Catholic Church has in guiding the electorate to vote in moral-social referenda. Framing analysis will be used to decipher if the No campaign’s argumentation is more in line with Moral Principles or Instrumentally Rational frames. Moral Principle framing will suggest that the No campaign is targeting the religiosity and traditional values of the Irish electorate. Instrumentally Rational frames will be more indicative of argumentation disregarding the potential apparatus of Catholic affiliation and religiosity found in the majority of the Irish electorate. Use of frame spillover can indicate that the No campaign does not consider the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage alone as influential upon the electorate; thus the campaign will use frame spillover to change the conversation to issues and potential future legislations that would be currently unpalatable to the majority of the electorate in Ireland.
As stated by Mucciaroni opponents to permissive policies ‘may eschew morality talk in favour of other frames if they think that moral condemnations will be less acceptable to their constituents when they are explaining their opposition’ (Mucciaroni 2011, 195). Thus purely looking for morality frames in the RTÉ debate, due to liberalisation of views regarding the topic of same-sex marriage in recent years, may be ineffective in appraising the salience of the Church’s voice on the matter. The electorate may not think same-sex marriage as immoral but may consider the concept unfitting in their conception of Catholic Ireland. Through discourse analysis below the No arguments can be outlined and understood as either in ‘direct association’, ‘hidden association’ or ‘blatant disassociation’ with the Catholic Church’; regardless of conceptions of immorality this analysis is broader embracing alternative arguments opposing the introduction of marriage equality. Arguments made in direct association with the Church will indicate that the No campaign consider the Catholic Church to be held as a positive influencer of the electorate; in that the electorate is satisfied to consider and follow the Church’s standpoint on the issue of introducing same-sex marriage to Ireland.
17
Hidden association illustrates that the No campaign while having similar arguments and reasoning to the Catholic Church’s standpoint do not wish the electorate to clearly associate their campaign with the Church. This would indicate that the No campaign is cautious of being associated with the Catholic Church and does not consider the Church helpful in persuading the electorate to vote No regardless of the majority of the electorate being Catholic. Blatant disassociation of the No campaign’s argument with the Catholic Church would indicate that the No campaign considers association with the Catholic Church harmful to their cause of persuading the electorate to vote No and would be reflective of an electorate that is considered to be hostile to the Catholic Church as a moral authority in the issue of same-sex marriage and more generally in sexual moral policies and legislation.
As 84% of the Irish electorate identify as Catholic it would be pertinent of the No campaign, according to Fink, to utilise the mobilisation capacity of the Catholic Church by referring to and promoting the voice of the Catholic Church’s opinion on the matter of same- sex marriage and the Church’s stance in the referendum campaign. If the No campaign does promote the Catholic Church and Church teachings as part of their efforts to convince the electorate to vote No then it should illustrate that the No campaign has confidence that the Irish electorate finds such Church association and teachings compelling. However, if the No campaign avoids association and the clear use of church teachings to promote their cause to the Irish electorate it would suggest that their own market research and assessment of the Irish electorate is one in which the Church’s moral authority and guidance is no longer welcomed. This will bolster evidence from the resulting Yes vote from 2015 that the Catholic Church in Ireland appears to be unable to influence the electorate. It would suggest that the Catholic Church influencing social-moral policies in the Republic of Ireland through use of referenda is no longer possible.
Finally, a brief overview of the campaign will be undertaken to illuminate findings from the debate and framing analysis to explain how Ireland’s high levels of religiosity combined with the Catholic Church’s clear push for a No vote resulted in the apparent contradiction of the introduction of same-sex marriage being approved by popular referendum.
18
Methodology Case Selection and Primary Source Analysis Ireland forbids the use of public funds in support of one side of an issue. Restrictions are also in force on the broadcast media in Ireland as a result of the Coughlan judgement of 1998 (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016; O’Mahony 1998). The media is required to give a balanced coverage of both sides of any referendum campaign.
The media has long been the main arena for referendum campaigns (Elkink et al. 2015). Scholars have investigated the impact of the media on public opinion and voting patterns and the jury is out on how effect the media really is in influencing opinion. Some scholars believe that there is a minimal effect and that the public either do not pay attention or ‘preselect media that reinforces their already held beliefs’ (Engel 2013, 412). Other scholars have found direct effects of media on what people think because the media ‘structure how that content is thematically delivered’ (Engel 2013, 412). I am not investigating whether the No campaigns framing or messages were successful but rather what the No campaign itself considered to be successful; thus if the No campaign were willing to be associated with the Catholic Church and its teachings, if the no campaign referred to similar messages to Church teaching then it can be said that they understood such messages to hold value and salience with the voters they were attempting to convince.
I have chosen to use a live television debate on the national public broadcaster RTÉ as this will have had the greatest outreach; not being limited by subscription fees. As live debates are unfiltered by editors this can reveal which frames opponents themselves actually emphasise (Mucciaroni 2011). In a study of a previous referendum in Ireland which looked at the electorate use of media, television and radio programmes came out on top as the most useful sources used for information about the issue at hand. Media coverage came in fourth place for trustworthiness (Marsh, Suiter, and Reidy 2012, 15–16). Media coverage came in as the most influential source on the electorates vote with a specific TV or radio broadcast coming in second thus illustrating how the television debates can be considered by those participating to be a medium which can have an impact on the viewing electorate (Marsh, Suiter, and Reidy 2012, 17, 30).
Research Limitations It is not possible to claim from this thesis that the No vote was indicative of pro or anti-Catholic sentiment. Nor is it possible to claim that frames used by the No campaign in the television
19 debate fully illustrate the trends of the Irish electorate. What this thesis aims to show is one aspect of the Irish electorate, its religiosity, and how religiosity in Ireland does not equate to an electorate that abides or believes in the Church teachings it identifies with. This thesis is also unable to establish the level of Church support or the overall effect Church teachings had on the referendum campaign; the thesis conclusions at most will be suggestive and indicative of trends in religiosity and the Irish electorate’s ability to be swayed by Church influence. The results of this thesis will be unable to predict any future referenda results particularly if such referenda are in relation to alternative issues; such as abortion.
RTÉ Debate In the final marriage referendum debate, broadcasted on RTÉ two days before the election, the Yes and No campaigns stated and argued their causes to the Irish public. The No campaign was represented by Senator Ronan Mullen, Patrick Treacy from Lawyers Voting No and Maria Steen from the Iona Institute - a Catholic Church advocacy group. The No representatives used many frames and rationales explaining why the viewing public should cast a no vote. These arguments ranged from concerns regarding children and surrogacy, to poor government and questioning the funding of the Yes campaign.
Throughout the debate the No side resounded the opinion that same-sex couples were not being withheld full-citizenship due to their inability to access full marriage; they suggested that gay men and lesbians could access marriage once it was a heterosexual union thus there was no discrimination1.
The No side raised reservations about the funding of the Yes campaign suggesting that a great share of their proceeds were garnered from an American Foundation Atlantic Philanthropies2. It was argued that highly professionalised lobbyists and foreign organisations were intervening in Irish policies and political life.
Instrumentally rational reasons for voting no were put forward by the No representatives. They argued that placing civil partnership in the constitution would allow for full constitutional status of same-sex unions and that civil partnership already afforded many rights in areas of tax, inheritance and social welfare. The No side argued for the status quo but with the added protection of constitutional recognition. The No side also talked repeatedly on
1 Addendum 55 2 Addendum 53 20 the point that same-sex marriage would lead to surrogacy. This argument was framed in the instrumentally rational perspective, as to give same-sex marriage recognition was seen to give recognition for same-sex couples to have children thus resulting, as they argue, in an inability to prevent a legalisation on surrogacy. Maria Steen stated,
“There is no constitutional right to surrogacy at the moment, that’s true, it’s hardly surprising because it’s never been before the courts. And what is going to happen if this referendum is passed is that the current constitution, as it stands, will be rewritten. We will have a new constitutional situation, and Mr Justice Cross is on the record, […] with the right to marry comes the right to beget children, what are we now proposing, is that there are a new class of people being admitted to marriage for instance in the case of gay men. The only way that they can realistically vindicate their right to beget children is to using donor assisted human reproduction or surrogacy”3
Such argumentation can be understood through Engel’s concept of frame spillover. The No campaign is reverting the conversation to a different issue which is perceived as far more unpalatable, surrogacy, and suggesting that this issue is likely to result from approving the more acceptable concept of same-sex marriage. In a similar vein Ronan Mullen remarked that,
“LGBT diversity did a study in 2011 of same-sex couples about the coming trends, and what they said was the coming trends will be starting families involving sperm and egg donation and surrogacy and to access that civil marriage would be needed.”4
However even though the above arguments were incorrect, repeatedly challenged by the Yes side, and corrected by the debate moderator, so that it was clarified that an introduction of same- sex marriage would not ensure legislation allowing surrogacy, the No side persisted along this line of rationalisation. As they combined discussions of surrogacy with topic of motherhood, natural reproduction and family, it could be suggested that in speaking of surrogacy they were directing attention to problems with the non-traditional family which falls into line with Catholic teaching and what is ‘good’ or ‘right’ and thus Moral Principle frames.
Most of the No side’s argumentation did come from the perspective of moral principles frames. This was particularly evident in the arguments regarding children. It was argued that it
3 Addendum 46 4 Addendum 48 21 was a child’s right to have a mother and father where possible; Maria illustrates this point by stating ‘every child has a mother and father and where they exist they should if possible be brought up and that is all were saying’5. It was also argued to be wrong to ever intentionally separate or create a situation in which a child’s biological mother would not be present. Ronan Mullen argues this point stating ‘what we must never do is deprive a child, upfront and in advance, of the right to be brought into the world by a father and mother, their own father and mother’6. He continued that ‘in the same-sex male case that involves an egg harvested from one women, eh, a women asked to act as a surrogate and that’s the end of motherhood for that child. We should not impose that on any child’7. The argument is simply that it is wrong to promote situations in which children will not have a parent of both the sexes/genders.
The No side also argue that the government cannot be trusted especially in regards to the marriage equality referendum. Patrick Treacy raises concern from a legal perspective that radical change could take place in Irish Constitutional history with ‘no green paper, no white paper, no Oireachtas inquiry, no working group, no impact statement’8. He also suggests that ‘a no vote is an indictment of the government. A no vote says that this was a crazy proposal, ill-considered, and not properly put before the Irish people. It is a very critical statement of the government it says nothing about LGBTI people’9. Here he clearly points to the No vote being used to show displeasure of the current government and suggests that the government was unwise to propose the referendum and did not follow good practice in attempting introduce same-sex marriage. Ronan Mullen suggests that the government is being dishonest and holding back the full truth from the general public explaining that
‘The government strategy throughout this debate has been don’t frighten the horses. Don’t admit that with the right to marry goes the right to procreate. Don’t admit that the Oireachtas’ hands will be tied, in terms of making a decision that would say, all things being equal don’t deprive a child of the possibility of a father and a mother’10
The No representatives also spent time defining marriage. Maria Steen chose to define marriage as a sexual union of a man and a woman through which a child can come into existence. She
5 Addendum 47 6 Addendum 43 7 Addendum 43 8 Addendum 39 9 Addendum 54 10 Addendum 44 22 argued that this is why marriage is the exception as the only intimate relationship mentioned in the constitution11. Steen’s definition of marriage is thoroughly consistent to that of the Catholic Church in which the yielding of children is a central concept; although she makes no clear association to Catholic teaching or belief in her explanation. Patrick Treacy turned to nature and what is ‘natural’ arguing that although we are all made male and female and made from a male and female ‘we are going to wake up on May the 23rd and no longer have a specific recognised legal definition for the relationship between a man and a woman’12. He stresses that his explanation of marriage was not associated with Catholicism stating ‘that definition didn’t come from the Church, ah it didn’t come from civil law it came from Roman law two and a half thousand years ago, the definition is a union between a male and a female and a sharing of the whole of life’13. Asked to state his own understanding of marriage Patrick expresses that he did not want marriage to become a genderless institution and that in his view marriage has unchanging meaning based on gender, the gender relationship between male and female. Further separating the No side’s arguments from that of the Church he stresses that ‘it’s not a question of traditional marriage’ but how marriage is defined in the Constitution.
The concept of a conscience clause was raised by the No representatives after Patrick Treacy raised the decision against Asher’s bakery in Northern Ireland in which they were found to have discriminated against a same-sex couple. Ronan Mullen accused the current government of rejecting amendments which would have protected citizens who wished to not partake or promote same-sex marriage in their business or line of work. When Minister Alex White of the Yes side insisted that Catholic priests will not be required to marry a Gay couple an irate Rónán Mullen responded ‘that’s not the point, nobody’s talking about catholic priests’14. Steering the No argument away from any association with the Church Rónán suggested there was need to protect the rights of teachers in schools, which acquire state funding, to teach about the importance of fathers and mothers.
Maria Steen also raised the issue of those who supported the No campaign fearing speaking out. She blames the media and government portraying the campaign as a battle between gay and straight people. She raises the issue of bullying and how people who do not believe in same-sex marriage are being abused. She recounts ‘I was told by a mother that her ten year old was called, in a derogatory way, not gay but a homophobe, ok. Because his parents
11 Addendum 37 12 Addendum 39 13 Addendum 39 14 Addendum 52 23 go to mass’15. In this way Maria makes the only direct association between the Catholicism and the No campaign. Here she suggests that a Yes vote may increase disrespect and abuse directed at Catholics in Ireland. She suggests that practising Catholics who attend Mass may be considered homophobes due to their faith.
The concept of unintended consequences was also given considerable attention by the No side. Patrick argued that friends could end up marrying each other as happened after New Zealand introduced same-sex marriage appealing ‘we can’t turn marriage into a joke it has to have integrity in our constitution’16. Ronan Mullen stressed that a Yes vote could lead to massive legal uncertainty about what marriage and the right to procreate will mean in the future17. Ronan also brought up the Good Friday agreement stressing that when it passed in 1998 ‘nobody knew that within seven or eight years that would put our immigration and asylum laws in issue and would have a knock on effect’18; suggesting that this referendum too could lead to unforeseen consequences.
The concept of motherhood was highly stressed by the No vote, their arguments suggesting that in voting Yes the importance of motherhood would be in jeopardy. Maria Steen was very emotive about the issue of motherhood stating that somebody else could look after her children is anything ever happened to her but she as their mother was irreplaceable. In relation to her own children, when asked if they were a gay woman or man and felt like second class citizens due to an inability to marry she stated ‘I can’t in conscience, knowing the relationship I have with them and knowing how much I mean to them as they mean to me, I couldn’t in conscience deprive my grandchildren of a relationship with a mother’19. Patrick Treacy discussed a recent case in the news and attempted to project an ideal of the nation in which motherhood is cherished; he described watching the 9 o’clock news and seeing ‘the story of baby Maria and the efforts that everyone has brilliantly making to try and reconnect that little child with that child’s mother. Now that’s the real Ireland, that’s the real Ireland’20.
15 Addendum 57 16 Addendum 40 17 Addendum 42 18 Addendum 49 19 Addendum 50 20 Addendum 52 24
Framing Analysis Throughout the debate various frames were used by the No campaign to argue their case for a No vote. These frames were not always clear-cut, as seen with the topic of surrogacy. Surrogacy initially appears to be instrumentally rational framing however it can also be conceived as moral principle framing as it speaks about same-sex parenting as ‘wrong’. Furthermore, arguments from the No side regarding surrogacy were clearly frame spillover; the campaign compensating for the present day ‘acceptability’ of same sex marriage with the socially unaccepted issue of surrogacy.
The majority of the frames used by the No campaign fell into the moral principle framing; however, this tells us little about the No campaign’s willingness to be associated with the Catholic Church and Church teachings as much of the moral principle framing is covertly aligned to the ideals of the Church. Furthermore, some of the moral principle framing concerned the government rather than the issue of same-sex marriage and when the moral principle framing did concern same-sex marriage it was presented under the guise of what was ‘natural’ and ‘right’ rather than linked directly to Church morality and sins.
Discourse Analysis The discourse analysis builds upon the evidence from the framing analysis that the No campaign wished to disassociate itself from the Catholic Church. Out of the three No proponents Maria Steen had the strongest ties to the Catholic Church, coming from the Catholic Church think- tank the Iona Institute. She is the only No participant to tie the No argument to the Catholic Church in arguing that practising Catholics are being understood as homophobic and that this will be exacerbated by a Yes vote. Yet throughout the debate no other direct association is made between the No argument and the Catholic Church except for this point by Maria in the final moments of the programme.
Hidden association is rife throughout the debate; the No arguments align with the Church’s teachings yet no effort to portray this commonality or the two associations is made by the No campaign. The No campaign’s argument that children are best raised by parents of opposing genders, the importance of family and marriage as institutions complement the Catholic Church’s standpoint regarding the family and marriage. Maria Steen’s definition of marriage as the sexual union of a man and a woman through which a child can be produced is identical to Catholic teaching regarding marriage, sex and the creation of new life. Yet while
25 the majority of the No campaigns arguments compliment or align perfectly to Church teachings none of the No representatives make this connection clear.
Blatant disassociation with the Catholic Church occurred on a number of occasions during the debate. Patrick Treacy when commenting upon marriage being between a man and a women stated outright that this definition did not refer to traditional marriage and had nothing to do with the Church but dated back to Roman times; attempting to clarify that his argument held no association with Catholicism. When the topic of the conscience clause was raised blatant disassociation was again clear. Rónán Mullen lost his temper utterly when Alex White suggested that the clause was not needed for Catholic priests claiming that nobody was referring to Catholic priests, instead clarifying that teachers or others may need protection.
The Campaign In a country where Catholic morality, as we shall see, has been as central to the development of state law and state politics as it has been to the personal development of the Irish individual, any clash between its vision of order and the citizens’ will be momentous indeed (Chrystel Hug, The Politics of Sexual Morality in Ireland p.1)
The Irish voted on Friday the 22nd of May 2015 on whether to amend their constitution so to define marriage as being ‘contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’. The next day political scientist David Farrell told listeners that the turnout could be the highest ever for a referendum and that there had been ‘huge mobilisation of the young voters and an amazing use of social media for the first time’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 165). The result of the referendum was 1,201,607 Yes votes to 734,300 No votes. All constituencies had Yes majorities except in Roscommon where the No vote won by 1,029 votes (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016). The turnout of 60.5% was a twenty-year record in the history of Irish referendums. ‘The total poll of 3,221,681 was the largest of any referendum in the history of the state’ (Murphy 2016, 324). There was only a modest difference in the likelihood of younger and older voters to turnout with those over 45 only slightly more likely to vote than those under 25; an unusual occurrence for any vote whether it be referenda, European or general election (Murphy 2016). The marriage equality referendum ‘upset the old wisdom – gleaned from previous abortion and divorce campaigns – that referenda to liberalise the constitutional position on controversial social issues can only ever yield small majorities in
26 favour of progressive reform’ (Enright et al. 2015, 11). Legitimacy for the reform of marriage was felt more confidently that it would have had the result of the referendum win been on par with that of the divorce referendum in 1995.
Many factors contributed to the resulting Yes vote. All the main political parties in the Oireachtas lent their support to a Yes vote. In February the Irish Human Right and Equality Commission acknowledge marriage as a human right and a matter of equality; it was ‘one of the first such bodies in the world’ to do so (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 34).
“Yes Equality” became the official organisation for the Yes campaign (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 14, 23). Yes Equality’s key goals were to have legislative reform passed on family rights and children to avoid such questions hampering the Yes vote (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 17). Yes equality also had a great deal of support from ‘individual civil society organisations, such as Amnesty International Ireland, the law society of Ireland and business interests such as twitter, performers, musicians, actors, and sporting figures, to academics and political figures’ (Murphy 2016, 320).
The government also made steadfast moves to avoid the issue of children disrupting the referendum campaign’s central question regarding who should be allowed to marry. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan shatter TD, drafted Children and Family Relationships Bill; the proposed legislation moved to give recognition as well as protection to gay and lesbian headed households (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 18). In September 2014 a revised Heads of Bill was published which had removed provisions which were to regulate surrogacy but retained the new protections for lesbian and gay headed households. The Bill was finalised in 2015 but would not be enacted until a few weeks before the referendum which was considered horrible timing for those campaigning for a Yes vote and was used extensively by the No campaign as seen through the above debate (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 19–20).
The importance of mobilising the electorate to vote was at the forefront of Yes Equality’s objectives. The successful passage of the divorce amendment in Ireland was achieved by a margin of less than 1 per cent. While 50.3 per cent voted for the introduction of divorce, 49.7 per cent voted against any such introduction. Divorce was introduced in Ireland by the voting surplus of 9, 100 votes; the equivalent population of an Irish village (Harris, Lock, and O’Shaughnessy 1999, 272). Yes Equality, in association with the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) began by focusing on voter registration. Yes Equality mobilised voters through door to door canvassing, social media and registration campaigns.
27
Yes Equality produced an eight-page A4 full colour newsletter which was distributed one almost every house in the country. Called ‘Marriage and Family Matter’ in it ‘parents and families of gay or lesbian people explained how much marriage and family meant to them and how they wanted the same for their children’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 67). Yes Equality also focused upon social media however many viral social media events for the Yes vote took off without the Yes campaign’s intervention. The younger generation appeared inspired and driven by the hope that their ideals would be reflected in the laws of the society to which they belonged. ‘Ring your Granny’ videos went viral inspiring the youth to connect with older generations of their family to begin a dialogue (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 114); similarly the ‘Home to Vote’ social media event calling for a Yes vote emerged from the new generation of Irish emigrants who had left Ireland due to recession (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 158–59).
There were several organisations calling for a No vote. The main organisation for the No vote was ‘Mothers and Fathers Matter’. The No campaign focused much of its attention in debates on media platforms, which were required by law to ensure equal air time to both positions, as well as an extensive poster campaign. On the 21st of April the No campaign began to erect their posters and it was estimated that 30,000 No posters were put up nationwide. One such poster showed a man and woman on each side of a smiling baby above the strapline: ‘children deserve a mother and a father’(Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 117–18). Two other posters with the No campaign targeted surrogacy and questioned the necessity of same- sex marriage. The former had the word ‘surrogacy’ above a picture of a toddler and the slogan ‘she needs her mother for life, not just for nine months’(Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 119). The latter stated; ‘we already have civil partnership; don’t redefine marriage, Vote no’(Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 120). These issues raised in the No posters largely complimented the teachings of the Catholic Church but this link was again not highlighted by the No campaign.
The Catholic Church supported a No vote and its arguments were essentially the same as those of the official No campaign (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 122). The Archbishop of Armagh, Eamon Martin’s message to the faithful was read out on RTÉ news. This message was also to be read out at churches (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 122). Yes equality released a statement on the Nine O’clock News expressing disappointment at the tone of the Archbishop’s intervention and Yes Equality invited the Archbishop to publicly discuss the matters he had raised; ‘they knew of course the bishops would never take up the offer to debate,
28 but challenging them highlighted the hierarchy’s unwillingness to engage with the issue’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 123). As highlighted in the Yes Equality’s analysis of the campaign ‘the Catholic Church was the largest campaigning organisation in the referendum, at least on the no side, with its opportunity to deliver unchallenged messages to tens of thousands of mass-goers each weekend’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 123).
As a predominantly Catholic country there was great ‘dissention in the ranks’ from the Irish Catholic laity opposing, challenging and contradicting the Catholic Hierarchy’s stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. There were reports in the regional media of ‘people walking out of the church when the sermons by the priests were particularly trenchant in seeking a No vote’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 124).
The personal stories and pleas which saturated the campaign coverage played a large role in giving another voice to Catholic Ireland. An example of this can be seen through one the Newstalk caller, Madeline Connolly, a woman in her nineties who had thirty-three grandchildren. On this radio program she stated ‘I’m very disappointed with the Pope. I was sure he was going to be on our side. I’m a Catholic. I go to church. I know that everyone is going to heaven… people should vote yes because God made us all’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 92–93). Many other personal opinion pieces called a yes vote ‘the Catholic thing to do’, many people through both speeches, interviews and articles asserted that they were Catholic and voting yes.
On the 18th of January, the Minister for Health, Leo Varadkar came out during a broadcast on Ireland’s main public radio channel RTÉ 1. Described as an ‘extraordinary moment’ the minister stated that ‘I’d like the referendum to pass because I’d like to be an equal citizen in my own country. That country [in which] I’m happy to be a member of government’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 34, 104). Minister Varadkar was the first serving Cabinet minister and most senior Irish politician to declare that he was gay.
The Taoiseach Enda Kenny who was supportive of his Minister for Health stated on a Radio program that ‘as a Catholic, he had no issue about extending marriage rights to gay couples and that the electorate had nothing to fear by voting yes’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 154). Some of the Irish Catholic clergy also acted out against the Church Hierarchy. The social justice campaigner Father Peter Mc Verry in Dublin and other Priests and Nuns stated that they were voting Yes successfully undermining ‘any influence the bishops might have had beyond their core flock’ (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 124). Earlier in the year Father
29
Martin Dolan of St Nicholas of Myra parish Francis Street in Dublin, received a spontaneous standing ovation when instead of giving a sermon he discussed about why the congregation should vote yes and finishing by saying that he himself was a gay man (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan 2016, 124).
This Catholic backlash further bolsters the results of the debate analysis which suggests that the Catholic Church has largely lost its moral authority in Ireland. Religiosity in Ireland has changed from being one of traditional institutional connection and strict adherence to Church laws to one in which Irish Catholics feel free to define their own faith, what it means and to reject the hierarchy’s teachings; as was suggested by various authors above (Hug 1999; Hug 2001; Ó Féich and O’Connell 2015; Canavan 2012; Donnelly and Inglis 2010; Adshead 1996).
Conclusion In sum framing analysis indicates that while the No campaign largely framed their argumentation through moral principle frames many of these frames were covert and did not directly speak to Church teachings or morality but rather what was natural or right. The framing of the No side could have been considered by the viewers as compatible to Catholic teachings but this was not obvious and presented in this manner. Nothing suggests from the frames used by the No campaign in the RTÉ T.V. debate that association with the Catholic Church would be beneficial.
Throughout the debate the No campaign consistently ignored the compatibility of their arguments to that of Church teachings and Catholic morality and at times were seen to be actively disassociating their campaign from the Church. This can be understood to reflect religiosity and the nature of modern Irish Catholicism. Both the results from the framing and discourse analysis suggest that the Irish electorate is uninterested or even hostile to input from those referring to Catholic morality and teachings. Contrary to what Fink has proposed it appears that in Ireland a high level of identification with Catholicism and strong belief does not necessarily equate to the salience of the Catholic Church as a moral authority.
Many factors played into the introduction of Marriage Equality in Ireland. It was not a vote against religion and that is not what I have attempted to portray. Rather the above analysis illustrates that religiosity in Ireland has changed and that the moral authority of the Catholic
30
Church in terms of social and sexual morals is no longer trusted as many scholars above have suggested. The analysis also shows that a large electoral identification with Catholicism and high levels of religiosity does not necessitate Church influence over said electorate’s decision in referenda. The mass of youth that voted in the election is perhaps also telling to the changing levels of religiosity as overall religiosity in Ireland has been in decline just at a slower pace than when compared to the rest of Europe; lending some support for Fink’s theory. A generational shift can also clearly be identified in the brief analysis of the campaign; the strong turnout of Irish youth to vote and the vigour the younger generations showed through social media is telling of a generation with shifting values from those of older generations.
It is clear that Irish religiosity does not equate to adherence to Church values as is illustrated through the backlash of many Irish Catholics through the media during the referendum. The attempts of the No campaign to greatly distance themselves from the Church indicates that Church authority and influence is weak when it comes to the Irish electorate and social moral questions. However, this result cannot indicate a trend in the pattern in which the Irish electorate will vote in other moral referenda; issues which look likely to be voted upon in the future, such as abortion, are incomparable. This thesis can however conclude that high levels of religiosity and identification with the Catholic faith does not ensure Church leverage over the electorates vote. The social-moral articles present in Bunreacht na hÉireann and referenda are no longer assured means by which the Catholic Church can assure its moral authority within the Irish State.
31
Bibliography Adshead, Maura. 1996. “Sea Change on the Isle of Saints and Scholars?: The 1995 Irish Referendum on the Introduction of Divorce.” Electoral Studies 15 (1): 138–42. “Bunreacht Na hÉireann.” 2016. Lúnasa 2012. Accessed August 9. https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEirean n_web.pdf. Canavan, John. 2012. “Family and Family Change in Ireland: An Overview.” Journal of Family Issues 33 (1): 10–28. Carozza, Paolo G., and Daniel Philpott. 2012. “The Catholic Church, Human Rights, and Democracy: Convergence and Conflict with the Modern State.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 15 (3): 15–43. Covaciu, Ana. 2015. Institutional change through discursive opportunities - the path to marriage equality in Ireland. Uppsala University. Donnelly, Susie, and Tom Inglis. 2010. “The Media and the Catholic Church in Ireland: Reporting Clerical Child Sex Abuse.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 25 (1): 1–19. Elkink, Johan A., David M Farrell, Theresa Reidy, and Jane Suiter. 2015. “Understanding the 2015 Marriage Referendum in Ireland: Constitutional Convention, Campaign, and Conservative Ireland.” University College Dublin. Geary Institute, UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy Dicussion Paper Series, . Engel, Stephen M. 2013. “Frame Spillover: Media Framing and Public Opinion of a Multifaceted LGBT Rights Agenda.” Law & Social Inquiry 38 (2): 403–41. Engeli, Isabelle, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Lars Thorup Larsen. 2013. “The Puzzle of Permissiveness: Understanding Policy Processes Concerning Morality Issues.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (3): 335–52. Enright, Máiréad, Vicky Conway, Fiona de Londras, Mary Donnelly, Ruth Fletcher, Natalie McDonnell, Sheelagh McGuinness, Claire Murray, Sinéad Ring, and Sorcha uí Chonnachtaigh. 2015. “Abortion Law Reform in Ireland: A Model for Change.” Feminists@law 5 (1): 1–17.
32
Farrell, David M. 2013. “The 2013 Irish Constitutional Convention: A Bold Step or a Damp Squib?” http://www.openpolitics.ro/wp- content/uploads/UCD_Mar13_final1.pdf. Fink, Simon. 2009. “Churches as Societal Veto Players: Religious Influence in Actor-Centred Theories of Policy-Making.” West European Politics 32 (1): 77–96. Fuller, Louise. 2012. “Catholicism in Twentieth-Century Ireland: From ‘an Atmosphere Steeped in the Faith’ to À La Carte Catholicism.” Journal of Religion in Europe 5 (4): 484–513. Gray, Breda. 2015. “The Politics of Migration, Church, and State: A Case Study of the Catholic Church in Ireland.” International Migration Review, 1–37. Harris, Phil, Andrew Lock, and Nicholas O’Shaughnessy. 1999. “Measuring the Effect of Political Advertising and the Case of the 1995 Irish Divorce Referendum.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17 (6): 272–80. Healy, Grainne, Brian Sheehan, and Noel Whelan. 2016. Ireland Says Yes: The Inside Story of How the Vote for Marriage Equality Was Won. Merrion Press. Hug, Chrystel. 1999. The Politics of Sexual Morality in Ireland. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ———. 2001. “Moral Order and the Liberal Agenda in the Republic of Ireland.” New Hibernia Review / Iris Éireannach Nua 5 (4): 22–41. Inglis, Tom. 2007. “Catholic Identity in Contemporary Ireland: Belief and Belonging to Tradition1.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 22 (2): 205–20. Johansen, Steven J. 2003. “Clearly Ambiguous: A Visitor’s View of the Irish Abortion Referendum of 2002.” Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 25 (205): 205–41. Kennedy, Fiachra. 2010. “Report - Abortion Referendum 2002.” Irish Political Studies 17 (1): 114–28. Knill, Christoph. 2013. “The Study of Morality Policy: Analytical Implications from a Public Policy Perspective.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (3): 309–17. Knill, Christoph, and Caroline Preidel. 2015. “Institutional Opportunity Structures and the Catholic Church: Explaining
33
Variation in the Regulation of Same-Sex Partnerships in Ireland and Italy.” Journal of European Public Policy 22 (3): 374–90. Knill, Christoph, Caroline Preidel, and Kerstin Nebel. 2014. “Brake rather than Barrier: The Impact of the Catholic Church on Morality Policies in Western Europe.” West European Politics 37 (5): 845–66. Li, Xigen, and Xudong Liu. 2010. “Framing and Coverage of Same- Sex Marriage in U.S. Newspapers.” Howard Journal of Communications 21 (1): 72–91. Marsh, Professor Michael, Dr Jane Suiter, and Dr Theresa Reidy. 2012. “Report on Reasons Behind Voter Behaviour in the Oireachtas Inquiry Referendum 2011.” Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. http://per.gov.ie/wp- content/uploads/OIReferendum-Report-Final-2003- corrected.pdf. Mooney, Christopher Z, and Richard G Schuldt. 2008. “Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption.” Policy Studies Journal 36 (2): 199–218. Mucciaroni, Gary. 2011. “Are Debates about ‘Morality Policy’ Really about Morality? Framing Opposition to Gay and Lesbian Rights.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (2): 187–216. Mulhall, Anne. n.d. “Queer Interventions : Queer in Europe : Contemporary Case Studies.” In Queer Interventions : Queer in Europe : Contemporary Case Studies, edited by Lisa Downing and Robert Gillett. Routledge. Murphy, Yvonne. 2016. “The Marriage Equality Referendum 2015.” Irish Political Studies 31 (2): 315–30. Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, Maire. 2009. “Religion in Ireland: No Longer an Exception?” Access Research Knowledge, Research Update, , no. 64(December). https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web &cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiC7bHH1K3OAhXDJ JoKHTMmCyEQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ark.a c.uk%2Fpublications%2Fupdates%2Fupdate64.pdf&usg=AFQj CNHXOkjWqyg8T2G4VASGq- LLGLjXDw&sig2=y5WA6TzwraFQ-ZSBVIp8AA. Ó Féich, Pádraig, and Michael O’Connell. 2015. “Changes in Roman Catholic Beliefs and Practices in Ireland between 1981 and 2008
34
and the Emergence of the Liberal Catholic.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 30 (2): 231–47. O’Leary, Cornelius, and Tom Hesketh. 2007. “The Irish Abortion and Divorce Referendum Campaigns.” Irish Political Studies 3 (1): 43–62. Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford University Press. O’Mahony, Jane. 1998. “The Irish Referendum Experience.” Representation 35 (4): 225–36. Tobin, Brian. 2016. “Marriage Equality in Ireland: The Politico-Legal Context.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 30 (2): 115–30.
35
Addendum Debate on the same-sex marriage referendum http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2015/0519/20782923-debate-on-the-same-sex-marriage- referendum/ Prime Time Referendum Debate Broadcast on: May 20th, 2015
Miriam O’Callaghan: With just three days to go before polling day tonight live in our Prime Time studio we bring you our final marriage referendum debate. Opened with the Beatles music ‘You say yes I say no, you say.. [Music fades] ‘The government are attempting to redefine both marriage and the family’. Voice over: Up to a hundred prominent Catholic and Protestant leaders have endorsed a leaflet arguing for a no vote. ‘A no vote will essentially be a majority voting to decide on a minority in our country that doesn’t have the right to be In Ireland marriage has constitutional protection and it’s about treating all citizens equally’. ‘What we really do have an issue with is this ongoing cover up of some of the implications of the vote. The idea that you can separate out marriage from family, from children is totally non-sensical ‘I think people are now beginning to realise that this is a referendum, an amendment which will have far reaching consequences eh for future generations’. ‘This is a sincere request from one Irish citizen to his country please see me as an equal, please see my love as equal’ ‘as soon as you give two men the right to marry, you give them the right to found a family which can include the right to have children, full stop.’ ‘You will be forced to pretend that we can change after the fortieth of aug.. that when it comes to the raising of children two men or two women are precisely the same as a mother and a father’ ‘Those who work daily with children and look after their welfare and work toward the international best practice they have all said that to vote yes would be a good thing for all of the children’ ‘And surrogacy is not a constitutional right for anybody’ ‘If this referendum had passed that won’t change that position’ ‘And that won’t change that position’ ‘Will a yes vote effect my heterosexual marriage? Not in the least. But it will greatly affect my life and the lives of all parents of gay children, and all gay children’
36
‘Mary McAleese has been a little bit narrow in her remarks, eh concerning children the issue also concerns a child’s right to a mother and a father. And that goes for every child whether they are gay or straight’ [Intro ends] Miriam O’Callaghan: Hello there and welcome to the program, well tonight with just three days to go before people go to the polls we bring you our final television marriage referendum debate. It’s been a long, and at times bruising campaign for all sides as the Irish electorate are being asked this coming Friday to vote on whether or not they would like this amendment added to our constitution: ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’. Well during tonight’s program we will be debating all of the key issues with representatives from both sides. On the yes side tonight we have: Colm O’Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International, Senator Katherine Zappone and Alex White, Minister for communications, energy and natural resources. On the no side: we have Senator Rónán Mullen, Maria Steen from the Iona Institute and senior council Patrick Treacy representing lawyers voting no. Maria Steen let me begin with you. Maria, all of you here tonight, all six of you, you’re Irish citizens, would you Maria allowed marry the person you love while Katherine Zappone across from you, just there, is not allowed marry the person she loves in this country. Is that fair? Maria Steen: Miriam, I have never spoken about this topic before it’s the first time I have ever spoken in public, em on this issue, and there are two reasons why that’s so. Em, and they are that I’ve been afraid, I’ve been afraid of the consequences, personal consequences for me and my family and secondly and more importantly, I have been afraid because I have, like everybody else in this country friends, colleagues and family members who are gay. And it would break my heart to lose their company, and their friendship and their love. And, I’m very conscious that there is a risk that I may lose their friendship tonight because I have appeared calling for a no vote. And I think part of the problem with the way this debate has been cast by many in the media, and by the government, is that it has been seen as a battle between gay and straight people and their rights, and I think that’s absolutely wrong. We are all part of the same human family and I don’t wish in any way to offend the many gay people that mean so much in my life [talked over by Miriam] Miriam: Ok, ok well let’s just bring it back to the question I asked you just at the very beginning, which is that do you think it is fair that all of you as equal citizens in this country that you are allowed marry the person you wanted and you loved but citizen Katherine Zappone is not allowed marry the person that she loves’ Maria: You see what you are doing is getting to the core of what marriage is about and that’s what this debate should have been about from the outset. ‘What is the nature of marriage? What does it mean? And why do we have it in our constitution at all? Now, usually the state, eh, is very slow to get involved in our more intimate relationships, so it deals with business relationships, contracts and so on. But the closer the relationship, between two people or a group of people, the state does not generally get involved and the one exception is marriage and we have to ask why is that? And the reason why is because it is the sexual union of a man and a woman. It’s only through that relationship that a child can come in to existence.
37
Miriam: Ok and just before I bring Katherine in just ask it once more: Is that fair, that you were allowed marry the person that you loved in Ireland but someone else standing across from you, also an Irish citizen, is not allowed marry the person she loves? Maria: Again, when we’re talking about fairness we have to think about the reason why marriage is in the constitution and it’s there primarily to protect children. The state has an interest in ensuring that a couple stay together for life because we all know that children thrive in a secure family home and all we’re saying on this side is that wherever possible we should try to protect a child’s right to know and be raise and be loved by their own biological parents. Miriam: Ok, Katherine Zappone, sticking with the topic of marriage at the moment what the view that gay relationships although entirely equal they are simply not the same Katherine? Katherine Zappone: Em, indeed our relationships are different from opposite sex couples, em, but difference needs to be treated equally and I think that’s really why at the heart of this issue of referendum, er, what we’re looking for in terms of this insertion of this amendment into the constitution is that all of the citizens in this republic are allowed to marry the person they choose to love. And I, and I really would like to hear our colleagues’ address why it is that they would argue against that every citizen, within this republic is not allowed to marry the person they choose to love. Miriam I am a happily married woman, married to another happily married woman, Ann Louise Gilligan but we married in Canada and that marriage is not recognised here, and so, but I want to say this, but that, it is that experience, of happy in marriage, that I draw on first and foremost and place that in dialogue with a reflection and analysis with all the issues that are going on here as well as the conversations that I have had throughout the Dublin South-West constituency over the last thirteen weeks with thousands of households, and I must say, that in that experience and with my very large team, em, we have never, we have never ever, em, I think, uh um, behaved in a way that would make anyone fear to say what it is that how they believe on this referendum, and so I am sorry that Maria feels that way, but I know in terms of the way my team has behaved that were not getting involved in that. Miriam: What about the, Katherine, Katherine, call come back…. Why is civil partnership not enough, in the sense because you have all the legal protections, you don’t have the constitutional protection but if you could take civil partnership and give it some constitutional protection is that not enough and it doesn’t need such radical change to the constitution? Katherine: First of all, as you say is correct our civil partnership does not have constitutional protection. That is absolutely huge for people like myself for Colm or others throughout the country, eh, because we don’t have constitutional protection, it our, the rights that are part of civil partnership are not protected by the constitution. As you say, they are protected by law, but that law can be amended or changed at any point. Miriam: Ok let me bring in Patrick Treacy… Katherine: And if that were the case, then eh, we could lose some of the rights that are there but we are not equal because we do not have constitutional protection.
38
Miriam: Ok let me bring, yeh no I just want to ask you a straight question, Patrick Treacy how would you feel if in your country you had been forbidden from marrying the person you love? Patrick Treacy: Well you see the core of the matter is what the definition of marriage is, and so just to answer what you have already said, there is a critical distinction here, Love makes a relationship thrive, love defines the quality of a relationship, but it doesn’t actually define the relationship. In other words, there is a difference between love makes it thrive but then we have to ask what is truthfully the definition or the nature of the relationship. Now what the yes side are canvassing is that even though we are made male and female and made through a male and a female we are going to wake up on May the 23rd and we’re no longer going to have a, a specific recognised legal definition for the relationship between a man and a woman and that definition didn’t come from the church, ah it didn’t come from civil law it came from Roman law two and a half thousand years ago, the definition is a union between a male and a female and a sharing of the whole of life and what… Miriam: But a lot in marriage has changed in that two and a half thousand years Patrick: Yes indeed, yes of course it has but what alarms and, what alarms people from a legal perspective is that we are going to make the most radical change in constitutional history in this country and we’ve had no green paper, no white paper, no Oireachtas inquiry, no working group, no impact statement and it, just to answer what senator Zappone said ‘no consideration of another way of actually approaching this, which is to give full constitutional status to same sex unions not even using the name of civil partnership but using a different name, one that the LGBTI community themselves choose’ Miriam: Ok just before I bring in the Minister, Paddy but aren’t you fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage Patrick, so whatever number of green papers or white papers there had have been, your view would remain the same on that? Patrick: My view would be that marriage has got an unchanging meaning. And that meaning is based on gender, it is a gender relationship between a male and a female and to wake up on May the 23rd and to have turned marriage into a genderless institution, cannot be done, truthfully. Miriam: Ok let me bring in the Minister. Minister there are two points there I suppose there that Patrick made. One the speed with which perhaps this has been done, we only got civil partnership five years ago is this too hasty for the Irish people? And secondly, I suppose, although the referendum commission has said it is not a redefinition of marriage, for many ordinary people they view marriage still as a union between a man and a woman. Alex White: That they do, and in my view em, the way we look on marriage and the way we characterise marriage and the way we define marriage can in fact be extended to include same-sex and to include our gay brothers and sisters. I mean, Patrick talked about two and a half thousand years ago, and of course the world has evolved, marriage has evolved, we have evolved, our community has evolved and we’re not, em, living, eh, back eh you know two and a half thousand years ago we are living in 2015 and it is open to us as a society to change how we view marriage to the extent that we can make it available to, em, to our gay brothers and sisters. That’s a decision we can make. Now, by the way, I have respect for Patrick or for anyone else who has a traditional view of marriage which says that it should be between a
39 man and a woman. I profoundly disagree with that because I think it can be change. But I have respect for that view. But what we need to do as a society, and we have this opportunity this Friday, is to decide as a community whether we will extend these rights to same-sex couples and I believe we should and I don’t believe that it is the radical change that Patrick says it is I believe it is something that people can embrace. Miriam: Let me, no I just want to put in Maria, Maria Steen has said at the very opening of tonight’s program that she hasn’t spoken out before because she was anxious and nervous about speaking out. Are you worried about that? Alex: Well I, when I heard Maria saying that I was thinking of all of the, eh, the people that I have met in the last, especially the last three weeks, and I have met many, many hundreds perhaps thousands of people, in my own constituency and around the country and I have had a lot of conversations including with people who have articulated exactly what Maria and Patrick have said about the traditional form of marriage that they, d’you no, that the way they view marriage, I have complete respect for that, I’ve had very, very generous conversations and I have left the doorstep knowing that people will be voting no because they told me so, so I think that people have been quite free with their views, quite free certainly to me, as their local TD in telling me that they are not going to vote for this, many, many more saying they will, so I think there is a good conversation. In fact there is an amazing national conversation going on in this country at the moment I have never seen anything like it. There is an incredible, you know eh, eh generation of, yeah, ok… Miriam: Ye Patrick, we will have to come back to you… Patrick: Could I just answer that… Miriam: Then I will bring Colm in.. Patrick: You see it’s not a question of traditional marriage, it’s a question of how marriage is defined in this document in the Irish constitution. The family is founded on marriage, and the family is described in article forty one as ‘the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society’, it’s described as ‘the necessary basis of social order’, it’s described as ‘indispensable to the welfare of the nation as a state so if we change marriage it has got to be coherent and true to this. Miriam: But Patrick aren’t there lots of different families in Ireland, at the moment? Lots of different types of families even lots of same sex couples bringing up children, widows, widowers, single parents, I mean we have different families today. Patrick: We do Miriam: other than the ones mentioned in the constitution Patrick: I completely accept that but we have to take marriage seriously because if you accept this proposal on may the 22nd you have a situation like we had in New Zealand last year where two male friends as a joke, just as a prank, they decided to marry each other, and they did. And we can’t turn marriage into a joke it has to have integrity in our constitution. Miriam: What would you say Colm to people who are listening tonight who would say look they hear what you’re saying, they love all their gay citizen friends but that frankly marriage
40 is a union, as they see it between a man and a woman and that is the foundation stone of our society in which children, most people believe, are most safely brought up. Colm O’Gorman: If you forgive me Miriam, I just do need to respond to what Patrick’s last point. You know Patrick if we want to look around the world and look at examples of where people have made a mockery of marriage they’re, they’re manifold, eh eh, celebrity weddings, that eh last 24 hours, people selling rights to try get T.V. programs and most of them including opposite-sex people. The fact that two clowns in New Zealand decided to exploit something about the law to get attention for themselves says nothing about the integrity of my marriage or Katherine’s marriage or the marriage of other people. Equally, eh, those celebrity marriages, if you are happened to be married, I don’t know whether you are or not say absolutely nothing about your marriage. So, people always behave in ridiculous ways, let’s let’s not reduce the debate to this, I agree with you this is a serious situation.. Miriam: OK, back to the point Colm, Colm: On, on the question of what I would say to people about their views of marriage, I mean, I actually agree with Patrick I think that, that, that marriage is a foundation of love on which you can build a marriage. I also agree, by the way, that the married family, is the, is a foundation upon which we build society and the married family is central to the good of society, the married family with or without children. Now, I happen to be a parent to two children myself, myself and Paul we parent two children ourselves and they’re almost eighteen and sixteen thankfully at this stage and they’re doing well, eh eh em, but even if we didn’t I will tell you what my marriage is, my marriage is a space, is a relationship within which I am challenged every day to be the best of who I can be. Paul helps me to be a better man. To be a better person. To be a better member of my community and my society. Together by committing with and sticking with and walking through the tough time in relationships, we are better people… Miriam: but why do you need marriage Colm? Why is civil partnership not enough? Colm: Well, I wonder would anyone on the no side swap their marriage for a civil partnership in the first instance, so when I was growing up, eh eh, in Adamstown in eh eh, in rural Wexford, eh, I had dreams and aspirations, I wanted to grow up, I wanted to get married, I wanted to have a family, family was at the heart of my understanding of the world, and the place from which I navigated the world from, that’s what I wanted. I didn’t want to be civil partnered, eh eh, you know, the the no side on this would have us go back to a dogma that originated in the 1890s in the U.S. of separate but equal, that was thrown out in the 1960s, this is Ireland in 2015, this is not the 1890s, not the 1960s and let’s not go back there. Miriam: Rónán Mullen, I want to bring in Rónán Mullen actually Colm. What damage Rónán would a gay man marrying his gay partner whom he loves do to society? I mean what damage would it really do? Rónán Mullen: Well, can I just say that what I want is a society where there is love and respect for everybody and respect for people’s private lives and personal commitments. And while there were problems, a number of years ago, in the way civil partnership, was eh, brought in, and some of the things it did and didn’t contain, the principle of recognising same- sex relationships was good. And the fact that same sex couples with civil partnership have the same tax, inheritance, pension, social welfare rights, as I go around my constituency in
41
Galway, people say I am happy with that and I, people are very happy with that what’s, what’s wrong with changing the meaning of marriage? Well, first of all it is a redefinition of marriage judge Elizabeth Dunne in Katherine’s own very famous case which is the main case in this area, eh, where Katherine sought to, er, have her Canadian marriage recognised for the purposes of Irish law, eh the judge said and that judge is now on the Supreme Court, that we’re being asked to engage in a redefinition of marriage here Miriam: well the referendum commission, Chairman Justice Kevin Cross, says that it is not a redefinition of marriage Rónán: Well I think that there is an area of slight confusion, I know that the referendum commission has been doing its best but perhaps they hadn’t regard to the fact that the high court had already spoken on that, and that the Judge as I said is now on the supreme court, [Unidentified voices - indiscernible] Rónán: But the point is this: that the value of marriage in society, is that it unites children with their biological fathers and mothers. That’s why society has always wanted to promote it. If we change the meaning of marriage in the Irish constitution, we’re not just changing the meaning of marriage, we’re changing the meaning of family based on marriage, according to the words of the Irish constitution, and with the right to marry goes the right to procreate. So, we are left with massive legal uncertainty about what that will mean in the future. Say for example the government has promised to legislate for surrogacy next year. And they have said they will do so on the basis of strict equality meaning that same-sex male or female couples will be able to apply [Unidentified voices - indiscernible] Rónán: to bring children into the world in that way, now if Miriam: Now I am going to worry? Rónán: If we try to limit that and to say no, all things being equal we should never deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother we run into the massive hurdle of the radical new equality that the Yes vote will have Miriam: Ok, well let me come back to Rónán: to the constitution Miriam: but what we need you to know, and the referendum commission chair has also said this, there is no new right to procreate under this. And under Irish law, post the Murray case, there is a right for a married couple to procreate but not an absolute right. So that is incorrect. Rónán: The court has not said that actually, because the case hasn’t been brought yet and the Judge did acknowledge and the words he used were, difficult to imagine how you could make any distinction between the same-sex married couple and the heterosexual marriage… Miriam: that’s about discrimination Rónán Mullen, that’s not… Rónán: No, but Miriam: about the right to procreate
42
Rónán: discrimination here is against children because while Colm rightly says and as other have rightly said, there are all sorts of different families and we should love and respect and care for all of them Miriam: I am bringing him in … Rónán: and we can address the various needs through legislation. But what we must never do is deprive a child, upfront and in advance, of the right to be brought into the world by a father and mother, their own father and mother. Or at least, have a father and mother. In the same- sex male case that involves an egg harvested from one women, eh, a women asked to act as… Miriam: ok Rónán: a surrogate Miriam: just before I bring in the yes side, can I just, no can I just ask… Rónán: and that’s the end of motherhood for that child. We should not impose that on any child. Miriam: I need, sorry Rónán, I need to quote, I don’t know if you heard Mr Justice Kevin Cross on Morning Ireland this morning, I just want to quote this. He said ‘this referendum is about marriage and whom may marry and whom may not marry, it is not in our view about adoption, it is not in our view about surrogacy. So are you saying that the referendum commission is wrong [interrupted] No let, Patrick answer that.. Patrick: Let me deal with that, because that is extremely important. Today, eh, there was actually a legal opinion expressed by Senator Shane Murphy senior council, who is a very well-known and respected senior council eh, in constitutional law matters. There has also been an opinion been expressed last week by Mr William Binchy, eh, who again is recognised among his peers as a constitutional expert. Now what they say, what the no side is being accused of saying is not what the no side is saying. We are not saying that this referendum is going to create a constitutional right to surrogacy, we are not saying that, what we are saying is, is that if this referendum is past, trying to put restriction on donor assisted human reproduction and surrogacy in the future will be affected by this result… Miriam: Ok, but the simple question Patrick, are you saying that then the Chair Kevin Cross is wrong when he said that this morning that it has nothing to do, in his view, with adoption or surrogacy? Patrick: no, you see if you just listen to what he actually said this morning, what he said was, what he is saying is that in the present moment as things currently stand this isn’t about surrogacy. That’s what he’s saying, but the point by what we’re saying [Interrupted] Patrick: and you’ll have this tomorrow in the newspapers, I hope that it’ll be published, it is an excellent clarification and statement by Shane Murphy consistent of what Mr Binchy said last week that in the future if this referendum is past it has profound implications…. Miriam: ok let me put it down to the minister and then I will bring you in. Now minister the referendum commission did also say that, if it was past that it would be almost impossible to discriminate in favour of opposite-same-sex couples
43
Alex: Well, we can come to the discrimination fact in perhaps a minute and what discrimination that it is proposed that what people want is to be able to do in the future and I, for the life of me, I can’t understand why people want to be able to discriminate in the future. But anyway we come to that in a minute, but I suppose the real point here is, it doesn’t seem to matter how many times these issues, these extraneous issues that are raised on the no side are dealt with and resolved, eh and, independent referendum commission deals with it for you know those issues appear to continually to be vegged up really in this campaign and this referendum which is about a simple question about extending the right to marry to people who don’t currently have that Miriam: but are they that extraneous, minister, if the referendum commission itself has said that it would be almost impossible Alex White: The referendu… this referendum is not in our view about surrogacy, is what he said Miriam: No, I just quoted, Kevin Cross there, but what he also said, the commission has also said that it would be almost impossible to discriminate, as you mentioned yourself in favour.. Alex: How would he how Miriam: of same-sex couples Alex: How people will vote this Friday will have no bearing on that issue, so [muttering background] whether or not, whether or not we can discriminate, or whether or not Rónán wants to discriminate in the future against same sex couples in a blanket way which is what appear to be suggested here… Rónán: No, that’s not true Alex: Please, let me just finish the point, so the exclusion of same-sex couples in all circumstances, from ever being eh, eh, admitted to for example the, eh eh, to use assisted human reproduction or indeed adoption which they also brought up but appear to abandon that… Rónán: not true Alex: Over and over again these issues are settled, em Miriam, they are not part of the referendum. What the referendum is about is a simple, clear, honest question: will you extend the right to marry to those of our citizens who are locked out from the rights to marry and… [interrupted] Rónán: Miriam [indiscernible] Miriam: Just let Rónán back in and then I bring you, just a few, Rónán then Colm and then Katherine Rónán: SFJE is allergic to dealing with issues in their fullness and you have this selective quotation of the referendum commission. The government strategy throughout this debate has been don’t frighten the horses. Don’t admit that with the right to marry goes the right to procreate. Don’t admit that the Oireachtas’ hands will be tied, in terms of making a decision that would say, all things being equal don’t deprive a child of the possibility of a father and a mother. Alex you call that discrimination, I call it not discriminating against a child’s right to
44 have a father and mother. There will be enough of situations in life where it happens anyway, and we will love and support all those families. But you do not deprive a child upfront and in advance of having a father and mother through the use of donor eggs, donor sperm… Miriam: Ok, let Colm O’Gormon come in on that… [indiscernible] I have balance the argument Colm O’Gorman and then Colm: I have to say, that I find it, eh em, frustrating eh, and surprising almost to the point of being shocked of having to stand here to repeat back the words of a high court judge who has a legal obligation to clarify absolutely and correctly to the Irish electorate the impact of this referendum to a legislator and two senior consuls. I just think it’s profoundly shocking that it is necessary to do that. So, to be very clear and not to selectively quote Rónán because I think you are being very [interrupted] disingenuous in how you quote, so eh, thanks Rónán for the insult but [interrupted] anyway I will read very carefully what the referendum commissioner said. This morning he said: ‘We have said, time and time again and I will say it again this morning that the referendum is about marriage. About whom may marry and whom may not marry [interrupted] it is not an argument about adoption it is not an argue about surrogacy. And on the specific question of the exceptional difficulty that would be created in order for the state to legislate to exclude same-sex couple from accessing a health service like assisted human reproduction if necessary here’s what he said: he didn’t say it wouldn’t be possible he outlines the basis upon which it might be possible ‘it couldn’t be done on a whim, it couldn’t be done on a prejudice, eh, if there were good evidence for example … that children fared better under one sort of parents than another well then it is possible that such differentiation could be introduced subject to the requirements I mentioned a moment ago. If you don’t believe that there is any such evidence of different treatment would then it won’t happen and it can’t happen [interrupted] Miriam: Maria Steen Maria: You know, you know Colm: Unless the no side what to ... Rónán: you selectively quoted [Multiple voices indiscernible] Miriam: Ok, let Maria Steen Colm: you think it is possible to make law on the basis of prejudice and a whim Rónán: Selective quotation [Multiple voices indiscernible] Miriam: Maria Steen, Maria Steen, [interrupted] Colm and Rónán I am letting Maria Steen … and then I will come back to you Maria: No I was a little surprised at the beginning of this program to hear the Minister say that he had respect for the opposition, because I have listened to him call our side dishonest for the last couple of weeks and I have to say I take grave exception to anybody trying to say that we are in anyway dishonest or trying to say something that isn’t, the, the situation that pertains here. There is no [interrupted] constitutional, sorry Colm I didn’t interrupt you. There
45 is no constitutional right to surrogacy at the moment, that’s true, it’s hardly surprising because it’s never been before the courts. And what is going to happen if this referendum is passed is that the current constitution, as it stands, will be rewritten. We will have a new constitutional situation, and Mr Justice Cross is on the record, and indeed the publication from the refcom has the same statement, and it says that with the right to marry comes the right to beget children, now, [interrupted] we have a legal opinion Colm: to natural procreation Maria: we have a legal opinion Colm Colm: to natural procreation Maria: Sorry Colm, we have a legal opinion, we have, eh [interrupted] Miriam: It’s not an absolute right Maria Maria: It’s not an, there is no such thing as any absolute right [interrupted] Colm: it is a limited right and [interrupted] Maria: it is not a limited right, [interrupted] it is not a limited right [Various voices indiscernible] Miriam: Let Maria finish, let Maria finish Maria: Sorry can I finish please, thank you. Eh, and what are we now proposing, is that there are a new class of people being admitted to, eh, the, to marriage for instance in the case of gay men. The only way that they can realistically vindicate their right to beget children is to using donor assisted human reproduction or surrogacy [interrupted] Colm: They have no right to get children [Various voices - indiscernible] Maria: Now, the rights that those, Mr Justice Cross has said that the right to marry also includes, and implies, the right to beget children. Can I say one other thing Miriam? Miriam: He actually said this, you know, just to be careful [interrupted] he actually said there’s no absolute right [Various voices - indiscernible] Maria: On the website, it says, there is a right to beget, it includes the right to beget children, if you look it up [Various voices interrupt - indiscernible] Maria: Now, can I stay another thing. Can I just say one other thing? [Various voices interrupt] Miriam: you can conclude Maria Katherine: My turn to speak after she...
46
Maria: Like Colm I too am a parent, I spend my days changing nappies, making lunches, ferrying the children around, if something happened to me tomorrow somebody else could come in and do all those things but it would not be the same, not for my children, because I know as their mother [interrupted] I’m irreplaceable. And, that is our point. Miriam: Ok, Let Katherine come back in ... Maria: Every child has a mother and father and where they exist they should if possible be brought up [interrupted] Miriam: Ok, Katherine, Maria Maria: and that is all were saying Miriam: Katherine Zappone Katherine: Ok, I just want to take up a couple of points, going back to something Patrick said in relation to the family and the constitution. The family in relation to the constitution, the constitutional definition of the family is with or without children. That is a fact. Secondly, I think it is important also to say, em, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, that he is a legal expert on the consequences of the marriage equality referendum, and he that, as he said himself this morning is im... he is impartial and unbiased and that is his job and that is what he is sworn to do as the independent chair of the referendum commission, so we need to, and if he is not that, he is ultimately liable to impeachment and so that’s how important that issue is in terms of his [interrupted] Miriam: Ok Katherine: Independent expertise that he is offering to us, and I would also like to address the issue of, the um, Rónán first arose, eh um, raised with us and then also Maria there, the notion that children deserve a mother and father should not be deprived of a mother and father as I think everybody knows much of these messages are part of some of the no posters. And two of my very close friends who are extraordinary mothers, to two beautiful young girls, who can read, and they go out of their door every morning and see that poster that says a child deserves a mother and a father. And what is the impact on those two beautiful girls who are being loved into extraordinary [interrupted] Miriam: ok, Katherine just before [Many voices - indiscernible] Miriam: Can I just say one thing [interrupted] Katherine, Katherine, Katherine Katherine: extraordinary children being exposed to that message I think that is one thing [Many voices - indiscernible] Miriam: All thing important, can I ask you one thing Katherine: to raise that question, and may I also, I want to [interrupted] Miriam: no, I just want to ask you one thing Katherine. All things being equal in life. Do you not accept, Katherine, that a child is best brought up, all things being equal, and obviously
47 circumstances stop that sometimes, by a mother and father, rather than by two fathers or two mothers? Katherine: All things being equal, and I think what the evidence shows, is that what really enables children to become who they are, is a loving, generous, nurturing family, all things being equal. That is the most important thing [interrupted] and the other... one more issue Miriam Miriam: ok, Rónán Mullen [interrupted] ok just let Rónán answer that point Katherine: Mirium, I wanna talk just mention that I think we’ve spoken a lot about the legal, the potential legal consequences of this referendum but there are also far reaching psychological consequences too. Especially for our young LGBT people [interrupted] and I want to mention Miriam: And I want to come back to that [interrupted] Katherine: want to mention particularly a young man who has worked a lot with me in the canvassing who he talked about he came out only after years of self-torture he was 20 years old and he says it has taken this referendum to accept who I am and to understand my story and my only hope is that the journey will continue [interrupted] after Friday’s vote Miriam: OK, Rónán Mullen [interrupted] on Katherine Zappone’s vote I think Katherine [continues to speak]: those are the psychological consequences I think of the vote by the Irish people Miriam: that the no side, I think that I am right to say, has focused largely on your concerns around children and no matter how many time Kevin Cross may say it’s not anything to do with [interrupted] Rónán: No, because he hasn’t [interrupted] Miriam: Could you just hold on a moment. That you know in other words, that you still are very worried about them. What about Katherine’s point, that in fact a child is best brought up maybe in just the most loving environment Rónán: Every child, and every family is different. But what, and nobody is disputing anybody’s right or ability to love a child. The issue is do you allow a situation where the law, where the Dáil and the Seanad cannot legislate to make sure that no child is deliberately deprived of their father and mother. And by the way, it was the senior council in Katherine’s own case Michael Collins who wrote an expert legal opinion that backs up our point of view [interrupted] Katherine: I believe they are independent as well as senior council Rónán: that it would be very difficult to give preference to father mother parenting over and about same sex parenting [interrupted] if this goes through [Unidentified] Just a second there … that’s true Rónán: And can I add another point. You know we do need a little bit more honesty here. LGBT diversity did a study in 2011 of same-sex couples about the coming trends, and what they said was the coming trends will be starting families involving sperm and egg donation
48 and surrogacy and to access that civil marriage would be needed. So, the campaign for the yes vote [interrupted] Miriam: Let me bring Colm... Rónán: is trying to as I said avoiding frightening the horses saying move on nothing to see here it’s got nothing to do with children. When we change [interruption] our constitution for example Miriam Katherine: I never said that it has nothing to do with children Rónán: when we voted for [background talk - indiscernible] the Good Friday agreement in 1998 nobody knew that within seven or eight years that would put our immigration and asylum laws in issue and [interrupted] would have a knock on effect Miriam: Ok, let me bring in Colm O Gorman in on your last point Rónán: the only way to make sure is to do what senator Fergal Quinn and myself tried to do in the Seanad. We put down amendments and said same sex marriage yes [interrupted] but not in a way that would deprive any child Miriam: Ok, let me Colm O’Gorman I need to bring in Colm O’Gorman Colm: So, eh there have been many surreal moments in this eh campaign. Not in the least hearing people on the no side who reciferously opposed civil partnership say that they now want to give those partnerships, that they tried to prevent coming into law constitutional status and in a last desperate attempt to demonstrate, to try an and side step this issue I I am [background discussion] findings it difficult to believe that we are back here debating and discussing surrogacy again. First of all in terms of that legal opinion that Michael Collins gave it in no way considered the 42nd amen... it in no way considered the children’s rights amendment [interrupted] the children’s, the children’s rights amendment Rónán: It discussed [Many voices - indiscernible] Colm: the children’s rights amendment to the constitution which actually, fascinatingly, some on the no side absolutely vehemently opposed [interrupted] Rónán: that’s not true Colm, I supported that [interrupted] children’s right amendment Colm: I I am not finished, Rónán, Rónán [interrupted] Rónán: and he did discuss the best interest [interrupted] Miriam: Rónán, I need to let Colm finish Rónán: I understand Colm: So first of all, some of those on the no side, as a matter of fact I think Cathy Sinnot and John Waters came straight from trying to have that referendum decision of the people, the sovereign decision of the people overturned at the courts, to launching first families first, their campaign against this referendum [interrupted] Rónán: Do you accept that I voted for it
49
Colm: I said some Rónán Rónán: well I don’t see why it is relevant then [interrupted] Colm: Can I finish my point Miriam: let him finish his point, and then I have to bring Patrick in Colm: Eh em, and that amendment, which the people decided and the people adopted makes it very very clear that the primary consideration, the paramount legal consideration in relation to any decision that’s made by any the care custody or welfare of the child is based on the best interests of that child in their individual and unique situation, and you know what that means Rónán, that means that the that the Oireachtas and the Dáil could not legislate in a blanket way to prefer any particular family type because what the state has to do is vindicate the best interest of each child [interrupted] any particular circumstances Miriam: Ok, Colm [interrupted] Rónán: proved our point, he proved our point [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Colm: and then finally can we please, for heaven’s sake respect the high court judge whose job it is to give us independent objective expert advice on the impact of this referendum who has said [interrupted] Miriam: Ok, Colm I need to pass it [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Rónán: you’re selectively quoting Colm: I am not selectively quoting I quoted it [interrupted] is not about adoption it is not about surrogacy [Multiple Voices - indiscernible] Miriam: Rónán, Colm I am coming, I need to ask Maria Steen. Maria I want to ask you a different question and it’s an important question as you know President Mary McAleese she spoke out today and she spoke about why she and her family are voting yes and how she doesn’t want her son Justin who is a gay man to feel like a second class citizen. Have you thought about what if one of your children came out to you as gay wouldn’t you want them to have exactly the same opportunities and aspirations in their life as your other children? Maria: I completely understand where she is coming from and I love my children fiercely in the same way as mothers up and down this country do and there is nothing they could do in their lives that wouldn’t make me love them and support them, absolutely nothing. But I can’t in conscience, knowing the relationship I have with them and know how much I mean to them as they mean to me, I couldn’t in conscience deprive my grandchildren of a relationship with a mother. If one of my boys decided [interrupted] ye Miriam: What if one of your child who came to you and said they were gay Maria and said that they, your son or daughter said to you that they felt unequal in their country [interrupt] because they were not allowed to marry
50
Maria: it is interesting Miriam, it’s interesting the only [interrupted] Miriam: would that still convince you to deny them that right Maria: It is interesting, because the only people that in this debate that have said that gay people are unequal is the yes side. The no side believe that gay people are absolutely equal the same as every other citizen in this country [interrupted] Colm: But you would deny us the right [interrupted] Maria: But can I Colm... [interrupted] Can I Miriam can I... [interrupted] This is not [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Maria: Colm again, but can I Alex: Please Please Maria: Can I finish Miriam: Let the minister come in Alex: The question of equality Maria: because marriage Miriam: no Maria Alex: We’re talking about marriage equality, and we’re talking about access and the right to marry [interrupted] and gay people are manifestly not equal to the rest of us, to me, I can get married, I am married and my brother who is gay cannot be married. Now explain that to me [interrupted] and explain how that’s fair Maria: I’ll explain that Alex: That is the original question, I’ve made a point of not interrupting I know perhaps we are allowed interrupt but I am not interrupting and I would just like a few minutes. [background voices - indiscernible] The notion, can I just, this language of of children being deprived, there’s no child going to be deprived of anything if this referendum is passed on Friday. The only thing that will happen this Friday is that many many children in this country will have the certainty and the knowledge and the reassurance by the broader Irish community that they are valued just the same as anybody else is. And the idea that em a child would be deprived of a mother and a father, can I just deal with this issue, because in the future, in the future children will be born in all kinds of different, a number of different types of situations we all know that it happens now. Most children will be born in families and in family units with a mother and a father. That will continue to be so. A minority of children will be brought up by single parents and a small minority of children will be brought up by gay parents. By same-sex parents [interrupted] please if I just finish the point Miriam: OK Alex: The is current, that is the situation now, that’s not what we are voting on Friday that is already the case. But what we’re voting on Friday is, what people in that situation, Colm for
51 example and others, who are raising children in a loving environment will have the recognition in the constitution that that unit [interrupted] is a family unit Miriam: ok let me put the point to Patrick Treacy Alex: that’s the only difference Patrick: I will answer that specifically. There are two news stories today which are hugely relevant in this debate. The first is the intervention by the former president of Ireland and a current member of the council of state not once but twice in this referendum debate. And what the very emotional and powerful intervention of Mary McAleese proves today is the power of a mothers love for a son. Furthermore, tonight while I was just waiting to come into this debate I watched on the 9 o’clock news the story of baby Maria and the efforts that everyone has brilliantly making to try and reconnect that little child with that child’s mother. Now that’s the real Ireland, that’s the real Ireland. Now the other point I want to say is this, which hasn’t been discussed at all. The decision in Asher’s bakery today is of enormous significance, now the reasons why it is of enormous significance is this. That was a case brought in the name of garret bale but was really brought by the equality commission in Northern Ireland. People I’ll answer but, please one moment this is really important and I will finish with this, the equivalent body that will bring the same type of actions in this country is the Irish human rights and equality commission and the Irish human rights and equality commission is represented on its commissioners by the founder of Glen and the director of the Irish council for civil liberties and the yes equality campaign is [interrupted] made up of those two bodies in marriage equality [Various voices - indiscernible] Miriam: minister, Asher’s bakery and then I’ll come back Alex: Can I can I just say I practice, I practice employment and equality law for twenty years and I think I have some understanding of what our law is. You cannot prohibit, you you... Our law prohibits discrimination against people, whether they are women for example, older, younger, membership of the traveller community we already have laws in this jurisdiction that stop, eh, business people discriminating against who they sell goods and services to [interrupted] Miriam: but Minister a lot of people conscience clause maybe for some people Alex: there isn’t a conscience clause Miriam: might worry some people Alex: there is a conscience clause, there is, this this referendum will will be followed by legislation which will expressly state [interrupted] which will expressly state Rónán: ye rejected the amendment which have been put down in the Seanad would have protected Alex: no hold on what, what Rónán, one of one of, one of Rónán’s tactics is to interrupt you just at the point, when you’re going to make a point that he doesn’t like, there will be an expressed provision in the legislation to ensure that a Catholic priest for example will not be require [interrupted] to marry a Gay couple
52
Rónán: that’s not the point, nobody’s talking about catholic priests Alex: any more than they are currently required to eh to marry a, eh couple, who are divorced or somebody who has had a marriage previously in a civil registry so [interrupted] Miriam: Rónán Alex: this, these are more and more, [interrupted] the people know what the issues are Miriam: Ok, minister let Rónán Mullen have a say [interrupted] [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Rónán: Alex Alex: they are tired a little now of all of the red herrings Rónán: that see is Alex is trying to [interrupted] Maria: children are not red herrings Rónán: yes, children are not red herrings, Alex keeps ignoring the central issue, the Asher’s bakery people didn’t by the way discriminate against gay people they didn’t want to put a political message on a cake and that’s the kind of constitutional uncertainty, precisely because of your government refused to accept amendments that would have said same-sex marriage but protect for example the rights of teachers in School’s getting [interrupted] state funding to teach about Miriam: Let Katherine Zappone get back in there Rónán: the importance of fathers and mother, and no but there’s another point here [interrupted] [Various voices - indiscernible] Miriam: No I need to have Katherine Zappone’s opinion Rónán: and the share of money coming in from an American foundation up to 20 million dollars [interrupted] [Unknown voice]: its going up Rónán: going to our nations, pressing far a led? [interrupted] No [Multiple voices] Rónán: the figure is actually 17 million dollars for the three organisations, including marriage equality getting half a million dollars [interrupted] this is where Miriam: But Rónán we don’t know where the money on the no side is coming from Rónán: I can tell you Maria: I can tell you [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Rónán: Maria can tell you
53
Miriam: Katherine Zappone Rónán: No can I just make the point please, Miriam: Briefly Rónán: we have had the, an unprecedented intervention in Irish political life by the massive resourcing of organisations eh, all campaigning for the yes vote to the point where none of the [interrupted] including the children’s rights bodies are capable any longer Miriam: Ok I need to, Katherine Zappone Rónán: saying a child should be equal a child should have a father and a mother we really do need to reflect on [interrupted] Katherine: relatively irrelevant [Rónán continues talking - indiscernible] Miriam: Fine Rónán, but I need to bring in Katherine Zappone Katherine: relatively irrelevant, we are a country that requires I think more support philanthropically than social change and maybe sometimes if that philanthropic support isn’t social change that you support you say that’s wrong. But I think the primary question that I haven’t heard the no side answer is why are people like Colm and myself still denied full citizenship under the Irish constitution [interrupted] Rónán: you have full citizenship Katherine [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Katherine: and in an Irish republic, where a republic equals means that we should be able to access all of the rights as everyone in this country we do not have the right that heterosexuals have to marry the person they choose to love and that’s all that this [interrupted] that this referendum is about to [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Rónán: its much more than that Katherine unfortunately Katherine: to extend, to extend that right. You’ve talked a lot about what you think may be the ultimate consequences of that, I pointed out that the main primary consequences if the people vote no is that of the damage it is going to do, especially to our younger lesbian and gay people. And instead they have the opportunity to open up and to say yes and as Mary McAleese said this morning together we can open the door and [interrupted] to let the future in and to breath the values of the 21st century into our living constitution Miriam: ok let Patrick Patrick: Can I just say something? Can I just answer that? Katherine: you are denying Colm and I our rights and our… Miriam: ok let Patrick answer that [Multiple Voices - indiscernible]
54
Patrick: Mary MacAleese said this morning that a no vote is branding Gay and Lesbian people. It is no such thing. A no vote is an indictment of the government. A no vote says that this was a crazy proposal, ill-considered, and not properly put before the Irish people. It is a very critical statement of the government it says nothing about LGBTI people. What it says is we are making a massive change and we need to consider it. But the second thing I want to say is this, let’s get real about equality here Senator Katherine Zappone was nominated to the Senad by on Taoiseach, Colm O Gorman is a brilliant leader of the Amnesty international’s national organisation of a national body, Leo Varakar is a tremendously talented minister for health and a Taoiseach in waiting and meanwhile poor old Senator Mullen here is scrambling to get votes in his UCD panel from people like myself whom I won’t vote for if we don’t get this referendum defeated now the point is [interrupted] Miriam: but Patrick are you Patrick: members of the opposition such a position of privilege Katherine: What! Colm: What! Katherine: What! [Laughing] Patrick: saying that they can’t get Miriam: But they can’t get married that’s what we’re talking about Patrick: no, no but the point is this Katherine: Or we can’t get our marriage recognised Patrick: they can get married or get their marriage recognised once it is a heterosexual union and always has been Miriam: ok minister I need to put Rónán Mullen’s point about the money that it is interfering with democracy in this country Alex: [interrupted] Well I, I, I’m director of elections for the labour party and I can tell you that our campaign consists of hundreds and thousands of activists knocking on doors and about 6 thousand posters. You know and whatever other activity that we can manage to do through the good offices of the media. That is our campaign it is funded entirely by ourselves. So, this notion, I mean, all of the bogie men that our brought into these referendum you know, about where the money is from, the referendum commissioner is wrong, Jeffrey senad is wrong, there’s a problem with Mary McAleese there’s a problem with children’s charities, everybody who comes forward or there’s a reason for proposition simply but profound proposition that people have a right to be married. That it is a question of extending a right that we already have to our fellow citizens [interrupted] Miriam: Ok Alex: that’s the simple proposition Rónán: we’ve both
[Multiple voices - indiscernible]
55
Miriam: quick word from Colm Rónán: eminent senior council, a judge is now on the Supreme Court who backs up our point of view. Can I just say [interrupted] Alex: No, no she doesn’t in fact that’s not true [Multiple voices - indiscernible] Rónán: can I just say the line from Atlantic, the line from Atlantic philanthropies is how they have boasted of putting full-time, highly professionalised lobbyist working inside the machinery of government [interrupted] Alex: So that’s … what is the figure on your list? Rónán: twenty million dollars Alex it’s never Miriam: Rónán to be fair you made the point. Colm O’Gorman Colm: So, so anyway, I mean it is frankly ridiculous two days before a referendum to be dealing with these kind of spurious, frankly ridiculous arguments in relation to the funding of civil society organisations so let’s be very, very clear. Atlantic philanthropies have invested about 700 million euros in the Island of Ireland much of that money has gone on supporting and building peace and reconciliation both north and south of the border. A huge amount has gone into third level institutions, libraries, hospitals eh [interrupted] eh, eh 8 million euros gone to Tusla to support families to support and other supportive agencies. I presume you have no problem with them supporting [interrupted] families Rónán: No I have difficulty with them funding campaigns to change Irish policy Colm: I, I will finish, Rónán I really would like to finish. So I presume you have no difficulty about it at all but let’s be very clear about one thing. Atlantic stopped funding because they are a spend on organisation. LGBT rights work in Ireland in 2013 so the ten fourteen seventeen twenty it seems to go up [interrupted] Rónán: half a million that marriage equality got. What was that for? Colm: it seems to go up, [interrupted] in 2014 Rónán: but what was that for if not changing the Irish [interrupted] [Various voices - indiscernible] Colm: NO, Miriam I have to finish the point Miriam, Miriam [interrupted] Miriam: no we are moving on Colm: Miriam it is an important question that I need, I need to be able to finish this point and I need to say this emphatically. The Yes Equality campaign, and all of those who have been campaigning on the Yes side are funded absolutely and only by the donations of individual donors to this campaign [interrupted] and the only Rónán: During the election cycle, during [interrupted] Colm: and the only, [interrupted] ok and the only reason
56
Rónán: but you have had… [interrupted] up to now [Various voices - indiscernible] Miriam: Colm, I am moving on now. Rónán, Colm. Maria one last point and I will give it to the other side then really quickly. People will say that on Saturday, that if this is a no vote at the end of the day that it won’t matter an iota to people on the no side. But it will mean everything to people on the Yes side. Maria: That’s not true, and I just want to say that I am still saddened at the idea that the other side of the debate em, sees us as being, in some way, anti-gay people, or wanting to in anyway damage or demean gay people, that is not true at all [interrupted] and I want to say that directly to all of you Colm: and I accept that Katherine: ye Maria: And, eh Katherine, you mentioned about you no, the damage to Gay people. I think it absolutely wrong that any gay person would feel damaged as a result of this referendum and sadly because of the way the government has chosen to play it, it would seem a no vote may be seen by some gay people, and I should say that there are many gay people who are voting no, including Paddy Manning and Keith Mills, who have been on this show and others [interrupted] [Various voices - indiscernible] Miriam: Ok, Maria: No, well actually Paddy wasn’t allowed on tonight so, [interrupted] [Speaking indiscernible] Miriam: But Maria what about the point that it won’t mean an iota I suppose to people on the no side Maria: well, listen here’s, were talking about [interrupted] Miriam: One sentence Maria Maria: We’re talking about homophobic bullying and other bullying. I am absolutely, categorically against any kind of bullying of any [indiscernible] born. But I want to say one thing to you. There are a couple of [interrupted] incidences Miriam: A sentence Maria Maria: I was told by a mother that her ten year old was called, in a derogatory way, not gay but a homophobe, ok. Because his parents go to mass [interrupted] Miriam: Ok, Katherine Maria: the second thing Miriam: No, no Maria I, really I am sorry but I have to go to Katherine Maria: LGBT badge, refused to wear a bag
57
Katherine: I think that it is the case that all were simply asking for equality, for the right that you have. Any heterosexual in this country [indiscernible] ask for that right to be extended to us that we choose to love and I think that Irish people are being offered an opportunity to advance and develop the republic that we live in so that we can all be free. Miriam: Ok. Colm, Katherine, Minister, Ronan, Maria, Patrick we have to leave it there. Thank you all very much for coming in tonight and thank you all for having such a civilised debate I really appreciate that. That’s it from us for tonight were back from Thursday until then thank you very much for watching. New now is next with RTE News. Until then Oiche Mhaith21. [Debate ends]
21 Irish for Good Night. 58