The committee will have had the opportunity to peruse our submission. I have copies of the oral submission, which I will make available. I would like to expand on some of the issues of particular concern to those of us who view the protection of the family by Bunreacht na hÉireann not only as adequate but essential in its present form. It is with a grave reservation that I make this submission to the committee, as I am suspicious as to the motivation behind the perceived need to re-examine the Constitution, purely in the light of movements within international organisation, notably the United Nations and the EU Commission on Human Rights.
Bunreacht na hÉireann has been the bulwark of resistance for Irish men and women who recognise that the broad thrust of international sociological change is not of benefit to any society which wishes to sustain itself into the distant future without increasing the risk of social disintegration and the associated fallout in terms of poverty, crime, injustice and, at a very human level, general happiness and well-being. The committee should, as an organ of the State, ask the questions it has posed from the perspective of the State and its Constitution. The submissions should have to demonstrate that the Constitution is failing the majority of people in the democratic State to indicate the need for change. If this is not the case, then the committee should rule that insufficient evidence is being provided to convict the Constitution of failing in its duty to protect the democratic majority, regardless of changed paradigms in international law.
Bunreacht na hÉireann is the Constitution of the sovereign Irish State and, until such time as this sovereignty is usurped by foreign interests, our Constitution remains superior in Ireland to any fads or phases through which international organisations wish to pass. I direct the committee's attention to page three of its booklet, The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, where it states that the task of the committee is "to complete the programme of constitutional amendments begun by the above committees, aimed at renewing the Constitution in all its parts, for implementation over a number of years". There is an innate suggestion that the role of the committee is to amend the Constitution, albeit by the introduction of recommendations to Dáil Éireann for the purpose of debate and, ultimately, referendum. The following question must be raised — what if the Constitution does not need amendment? What if the Constitution in its current format represents the best interests of the people? Surely then there can be no need to suggest amendment.
The booklet further states that the committee's task is "unprecedented: no other state with the referendum as its sole mechanism for constitutional change has set itself so ambitious an objective". Did it enter the minds of those who decided to proceed along this route that perhaps all the other states were not wrong? Perhaps this is an exercise too far and we are seeking change for the sake of change, particularly a Constitution which has served its people well? Article 41.1 recognises the family as "the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law". Does this article serve the people or cause undue suffering?
No society is based on another fundamental unit group to which we should aspire. Countries which have sought to "break" the family in favour of the state, such as the old Iron Curtain states, have endured immense sociological and individual suffering. The family based on marriage has long been the bedrock of Irish and other societies. Where the marital relationship breaks down, people universally lament the fact. Where there are children of the marriage, the tragedy is always considered to be compounded.
The recognition of the family's importance by the Constitution and its ascription to it of "inalienable and imprescriptible rights" shows the importance traditionally attributed to this fundamental unit by Irish society. It has served us well. The flaws, if any, attributable to the family unit are invariably of a human nature. They will never be removed as long as human nature remains unchanged.
When the Constitution describes the family as "indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State", it is not a statement to be taken lightly. Weakening the family, as has been the wont of the Legislature in the past three decades, in particular, has led to a situation where many children and "grown-up children" have suffered unnecessarily because the State has failed in its obligation to protect the family unit and to afford it special rights and privileges.
The State's introduction of policies, which successive Governments have pursued, to forcefully remove mothers from their homes and to financially penalise mothers who take on the role of homemaker is a national disgrace. The lack of insight displayed by politicians regarding the importance of the role played by these women who choose to stay at home to rear their children is all the worse.
If the State wants to provide for the future, more parents should be encouraged to have more children, like the other countries of the world, which have finally realised that extinction faces the nation which does not produce adequate numbers of citizens. The report of the EU Commission, Confronting Demographic Change: a New Solidarity Between the Generations, should be read by the committee and by the Minister of Finance. The report confirms that the EU is facing an unprecedented demographic crisis and that immigration can no longer be relied on to mitigate the impact of falling birth rates. It also predicts that, despite the increase of retirement age, the falling population will cause annual growth to be halved by 2040.
Faced with this crisis the EU falls back helplessly on the Lisbon Agenda, so slavishly followed in introducing tax individualisation to penalise single income families, an agenda which will, in the long term, exacerbate the problem. PricewaterhouseCoopers' calculations following the December 2004 budget showed that tax individualisation punished single-income families to the tune of €4,680 a year. The Mother and Child Campaign urges the committee to recommend an end to tax individualisation and the introduction of policies that recognise the invaluable service to the State provided by mothers in the home.
Surveys conducted by BUPA, Top Santé, New Woman and many others have shown that a majority of mothers would prefer to raise their children at home given the option. Mothers who make many sacrifices to rear their children at home do the State an inestimable and unrewarded service, and that the emotional well-being of children is vastly improved by their sacrifices is now universally accepted. In its 2002 document entitled Parents Under Pressure, the child care agency Barnardos criticised the current child care debate for being more concerned about gender equality and market forces than the welfare of children. It suggests that time poverty is one of the greatest threats to children’s well-being.
Research undertaken by Professor Jay Belsky, director of the Institute for Studies of Children at Birkbeck College, London, found there is no substitute for a child's parents, especially for a mother, in the early years of a child's life. He also states that children who spend more than 20 hours a week away from their parents, in child care, from an early age, are likely to become problem children, more aggressive and less well behaved. The debate on child care has shifted in that we now widely accept it is damaging and discuss how damaging it may be. Article 41.2 should not be changed. Instead the committee should recommend to the State that it fulfils its obligations to protect the place of the mother in the home.
The Mother and Child Campaign notes the manner in which the question relating to Article 40.2 was phrased gives rise to concerns regarding the objectivity of the committee. Had the committee already decided that the constitutional protection of mothers in the home is outdated or was the committee trying to be provocative? The Mother and Child Campaign will meet any attempt to remove protection from mothers in the home with determined and successful opposition.
Sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology and psychiatry all recognise the importance of providing stable early home environments for the citizens of the State. When the family unit begins to break down, the fabric of society is shredded and the result is anarchy. We are witnessing in our cities in particular the effects of the breakdown of the traditional family unit. As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist with much experience in the area of treating personality disorder, particularly of the more widespread emotionally unstable and anti-social types, I have long realised that I can almost predict the nature of the early environments that precede the development of gravely disordered offenders. The State has never sought to address this issue, despite the fact that the incidence and prevalence of violent crime continues to grow at such a rate that it is negligent of the State institutions not to seek to understand the link between family breakdown and increasing social chaos.
In the English language, marriage is defined as "a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this". Even in law, which can sometimes deviate from the vernacular norms in regard to definitions of certain commonly used terms, marriage is defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognised and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law".
The committee, in examining Article 40.3, should consider what additional efforts can be made to protect the institution of marriage on which the family is founded and how best to protect it against attack. One way which is obvious is to protect the integrity of marriage by ensuring that no other unions, be they homosexual, bisexual, or others are considered as constituting a marriage. There is a tiny but vociferous lobby which seeks to have unions based on a variety of sexual preferences recognised as marriages. Should the State extend the protection of the Constitution as outlined in Article 41.3.1 to such unions? The question can only be answered by asking if this would be of such benefit to the State and to the nation that it would be warranted.
There is no evidence that such benefit would accrue to the State from including such unions under the aforementioned protection of the family. The family based on marriage is the world's most enduring institution, largely because it is held to be life-long and faithful and because it has provided the best environment for raising children. The mother and child campaign recognises the superb efforts made by lone parents to raise their children as best they can, but it remains the case that the two-parent family is the ideal. Recognising that ideal does not discriminate against nor make judgment on individual circumstances.
Individuals, because of their inherent human dignity, must be protected by the State. Unions not based on marriage already have protection under the personal rights identified in Article 40.3. Where siblings or other family members reside together, legal protection with regard to distribution of property, etc., can be provided. Any alternative to the recognised family based on the sacred institution of marriage is of no benefit to the nation or the State.
Framing this debate in terms of rights is, in fact, misleading. Marriage is not in itself a right, rather it is an institution with a very special function. Marriage is not simply about love, it is about providing a formal, stable framework for propagation and it, therefore, has huge implications for the future of our society. Society has a vested interest in how children are raised. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that heterosexual marriage has survived for so long and has come to incorporate and attract various legal benefits. If one removes children from the equation, then adult romantic relationships cease to have any special relevance to the future of society. They become purely private affairs that require no special sanction or blessing from the State.
The legal challenge brought by Zappone and Gilligan, the Private Members' Bill proposed by Senator Norris and the vigorous lobbying of several numerically insignificant taxpayer-funded gay and lesbian groupings, do not reflect the views of the majority of Irish people, as is evidenced by the submissions received by the committee. Homosexual and lesbian unions should never have the right to adopt children. They cannot provide the secure and loving environment children require. Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexual or lesbian couples. No significant public support exists to give homosexuals or lesbians the right to adopt Irish children.
The immense media interest and promotion of the idea of homosexual parenting, and the idea that somehow this would lead to a new type of family, makes it necessary for a brief comment on this. I refer the committee to the website of the American College of Pediatricians and its section dealing with parenting issues. In short, the following points are made and substantiated by relevant research references. Data based on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Child-rearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sexual partners, even within what are loosely termed “committed relationships”. Individuals who practise a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and shortened lifespans. The American College of Pediatricians states that although some would claim these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practise homosexual behaviour and engage in sexual experimentation. The latter are all associated with increased risk of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety disorder and conduct disorder, which lead to anti-social personality disorders, substance dependence and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
The committee may wish to examine whether the introduction of divorce, as mentioned in Article 41.3.2°, has led to an increase in the likelihood of marital breakdown in view of the fact that the 1995 amendment has rendered State marriage soluble. Perhaps the committee will consider examining whether there is an advantage in marriage where the man and woman involved make a commitment of a sacred lifelong nature versus that of the amended temporary State type. We refer the committee to the submission of the Mother and Child Campaign for any additional comment on constitutional matters relating to the family.
I would like to comment on the submissions made by the Mother and Child Campaign. Members and supporters of the campaign posted and hand delivered an estimated 20,000 submissions, both in written, printed and petition form, to the offices of the All-Party Oireachtas Commission on the Constitution. The offices are willing to acknowledge only 8,000 submissions. This is a serious development which undermines the credibility and authority of the joint committee. The petitions and submissions are now State documents on the matters before the committee and of particular importance to those citizens we have been asked to represent at these oral hearings. We have evidence, a signed receipt of delivery which is available to the committee, with regard to 9,244 of the said submissions and petitions. It is absolutely impossible for any group to have faith in an Oireachtas committee which in a most ominous manner cannot account for the whereabouts of public written submissions, particularly where they are all in support of maintaining the integrity of the Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. Our members who have made submissions which have either not been acknowledged or, more interestingly, acknowledged and then denied will swear affidavits before legal representatives today. We will not allow the voices of citizens to be silenced because they do not meet the political parties' consensus on how best to dismantle the Constitution.
As I have stated, the objectivity of the joint committee has, in our eyes, always been in question because of the language used by the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution in advertising for public submissions and statements in advance of the holding of public hearings. The Mother and Child Campaign wishes to alert the people to our belief this process is a farce with a predetermined outcome. The views of the people are being disregarded in an unprecedented display of contempt and disrespect for the democratic process. We hold this in refusing to acknowledge the committee has authority. So ends our engagement with it.
