I will outline briefly the synopsis for the committee following which we will accept questions.
In regard to family rights the Irish Constitution reflects widely accepted views of the role of women and men in society in post-independent Ireland. It is generally agreed that these views were influenced by the cultural ethos of our time. However, social practice is now broadly divergent from that envisaged in the Constitution as clearly evidenced by current statistics on marital status, living arrangements and women working outside of the home. While some legal experts have stated that constitutional change is unwarranted due to the courts' capacity to interpret the Constitution in an historically sensitive manner, the State and especially the Supreme Court have so far refused to read the Constitution in such a way in relation to the articles on the family and continue to understand its provision in a literal fashion. These provisions which adopt a biologically deterministic approach to women and men's role and proclaim marriage as the only valid family formation have had negative repercussions not only for women and children but also for men.
The belief that caring duties should be the responsibility of women has had a detrimental effect on the emotional well being of both women and men in their role of parents and also has been found to especially affect the physical and mental health of mothers. The definition of family as implied in our Constitution is that based on marriage and it no longer reflects the reality of society. Recent statistics clearly indicate a changed family landscape. I will not go through all the various statistics as I am sure the committee is well aware of them.
The Women's Health Council believes the family should be seen in terms of what it does, that is, caring, and the kind of relationships and values that compromise it, rather than seeing the family in terms of structure or a group of people who are defined by a legal relationship. If one agrees that the main purpose of family life is to care for close personal relationships and especially children then the State must encompass all family forms that carry out this task without discrimination on the basis of which they were constituted. The current constitutional and legal situation does not reflect the change in family formation. They have, instead, established a hierarchy among different kinds of family. This hierarchy discriminates against non-marriage based families in both tangible and not so tangible ways.
Real discrimination occurs in terms of taxation, legal recognition and social policy measures despite the fact the State is capable of recognising non-marital family units for the purpose of social welfare entitlements or denying social welfare entitlements. Discrimination also affects members of non-marriage based families on an emotional and psychological basis and lone parents have been found to be at a greater risk of experiencing mental health problems than any other type of parent. It is important to state also that children suffer from this hierarchy as they are well capable of evaluating whether their family is different from the model promoted by public policy and consent. They translate this convert discrimination into a negative perception of their family and themselves.
The Women's Health Council thinks it is very important that the difference in family forms is not perceived and understood as deficit, particularly by the children. International studies comparing parental outcome for families formed in different ways have found it is the quality of parenting rather than how the family came into being that has most influenced child development.
Legal and social provisions should be updated to end this official discrimination of families. A new provision should acknowledge and reflect the fundamental role family life plays in society, regardless of marital status, in order that it may adequately cater for the needs of all families within a contemporary context.
On whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, one of the questions posed in the joint committee's correspondence, the Women's Health Council believes being able to marry would reduce the inequality experienced by gay couples and go some way towards eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the realm of family formation. Equally, it would not be as satisfactory a solution as the legal position of gay marriages but the introduction of civil partnerships for some same sex couples would be a positive stepping stone towards equality. The case for establishment of civil partnerships of same sex couples has been comprehensively argued by two other Government agencies, the Equality Authority and the National Economic and Social Forum.
On the Constitution's reference to women's life within the home, the domestic role envisaged for women in the Constitution has been described as dated, patriarchal and offensive. De Valera defended these constitutional provisions on the basis of their protective aim. However, his intentions did not ever translate into practice in regard to tax or social policy measures, rendering them of no real assistance to women working in the home. Furthermore, the constitutional vision of a clearly defined and confined gender role was based on a biologically deterministic understanding of women and men. That vision was never fully accurate but social and economic changes in the past decade have further curtailed its relevance to society.
The constitutionally envisaged model family, based on a male breadwinner, is now hindering the ability of both women and men to embrace fully their many social roles. The expectation that women will remain in the home to care for their families on a full-time basis has also created a chronic under-provision of child care services. During a national public consultation process the reconciliation of work and family life was an issue more for women than for men because of the difficulty in balancing their many social roles. On the other hand, men, especially fathers, have also suffered at the hands of this descriptive family policy practice based on gender stereotypes. The definition of women as carers has underpinned the marginalisation of men as emotionally significant in their children's lives as well as discrimination in regard to social welfare entitlements as carers.
The Women's Health Council proposes that Article 41.2.1° should be altered to read:
The State recognises that family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State endeavours to support caring for others within the home.
The revised policy framework that would stem from such a constitutional provision would enable both women and men to embrace more fully their social role as carers and workers.
On the issue of whether the natural mother or the natural father should have expressed constitutional protection, the Women's Health Council believes the common understanding of the definition of "natural mother" or "natural father" could limit the rights of adoptive parents, parents in reconstituted families and women and men who become parents through the increasing use of assisted human reproduction procedures in which biological and social parenthood may be dissociated. Their children's rights may also be negatively affected. Great care should be taken in assigning primacy to the biological function of parenthood over its social one.
