I wish the last speaker will. It is evident that he is back to his full health, which is as it should be.
With the greatest respect, Deputy Flanagan's point that we will have the most liberal form of divorce in the world is contrary to the facts. It is one of the least liberal constitutional proposals compared to Catholic Spain or Italy where the proposals regarding divorce were far less restrictive and restricting. However, I do not intend to engage in badinage or argy-bargy with any individual, group of individuals or institutions on this issue. I intend to follow a consistent personal line in the matter. I am for the proposal and I made a speech on this matter last November during the debate of the report of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown. I said then that, having said my piece in this regard, I would, for the benefit of the people, remain silent, and I am sure there will be loud rounds of applause on that account. I do not intend to get involved in the subsequent arguments for or against the measure. I will make my speech here this evening and contribute as best I can on Committee Stage in regard to improving, where possible, the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. I want my constituents and others who may be concerned to know where I stand on this issue and, having done so, I will leave the matter to the people to decide. In 1986 the population are well able to make up their own minds without intrusion of political advice from any party. I do not intend this to be a carping point, but the less said by politicians after the conclusion of the passage of this proposal the better.
The confusion which I noticed in The Irish Times, Irish Independent and The Irish Press this morning in relation to Fianna Fáil's position on this matter is very understandable. For example, The Irish Times had a headline —“FF joins Church in opposition to divorce.” I understand how that arose and I am in no way critical of the headline, but it does not face up to the facts or to the historical position taken by Fianna Fáil on this issue. I heard my colleagues, in particular Deputy O'Hanlon, and my friend, Deputy Brian Lenihan, read into the record of the House the statement issued from the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party on 25 April 1986. Deputy Lenihan was paraphrasing the statement and Deputy O'Hanlon was reading an excerpt from, the statement. However, the statement should be recorded in full and I intend to quote it:
At a specially convened meeting today, the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party considered the proposal of the Coalition Government to seek the approval of the people for the alteration of Article 41 of the Constitution in order to allow for the dissolution of marriages in certain circumstances.
The party carefully considered all the many aspects and implications of this proposal and in particular its profound effect on the position of families and the nature and quality of our society. They also had regard to the many different but sincerely held views in the community on this issue and decided that the question should be left to the people as a whole to decide. Accordingly, the party will not oppose, in the Dáil or Seanad, the proposal to hold a referendum.
Fianna Fáil hope that this important issue will be fully and responsibly assessed by the people and a wise decision arrived at after an informed and balanced debate, free of rancour or prejudice. To ensure that the debate does not take place along party political lines, Fianna Fáil have decided that the party will not campaign politically in the referendum. Because, however, many members of the party feel deeply about the issue, individual Deputies and Senators will be free to participate personally in whatever way they wish in their individual capacities.
The family, under the Constitution, is the natural primary and fundamental unit of society, which the State guarantees to protect. The State is also pledged to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded. Fianna Fáil are convinced that the stability of our society and the welfare of the individual can best be protected by adhering to these principles in the Constitution and will press the Government to implement, as a matter of urgency, a comprehensive programme of measures to support and sustain marriage and the family as outlined in the report of the Joint Committee on Marital Breakdown.
In the circumstances, having regard to one statement made by a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party yesterday, it is understandable that the headlines in the newspaper suggests that Fianna Fáil join the Church in opposition to divorce. I assume the Church meant in the headline was the Catholic Church. However, that is not the position. The statement from the parliamentary party speaks for itself and I stand by that statement. I am not speaking on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. I am speaking on my own behalf and members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party who have spoken or will speak in this debate will not represent the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. They will represent their own positions. As I understand the English language, and the interpretation of that statement issued by the parliamentary party, that is what that means and no individual, or individuals, will bind the party. I hope I have made my position and that of the party clear. I, and all other members who contribute on this matter, speak as individuals. The formula, "we in Fianna Fáil" does not apply. Individuals in Fianna Fáil who wish to contribute, speak for themselves but not for the party. I hope that point has been taken.
I welcome the sensitive approach which has been a feature of the discussion in recent weeks since the introduction of the Government's proposed legislation. I do not have any objection to the Church issuing pastorals or messages from the pulpit on the matter. The Bishops are entitled to do that. In fact, they may have been in dereliction of their spiritual duty if they did not do that. Let them issue their message. Let us hear from the Catholic Church on the one hand, the Protestant Churches on the other and from our Jewish citizens. I do not think there is any great objection to having the various Churches indicate their positions in relation to this divorce legislation. They have an obligation to guide their people but they must distinguish, as Bishop Cassidy did, between abuse and use of the pulpit. They must distinguish between guidance and intimidation. They must draw that important distinction.
The Catholic Church have issued pastorals in the past, will issue a pastoral on Sunday and will issue pastorals in the future. We look forward to the pastoral on Sunday and the pastorals the Bishops may have in mind for the future. The Bishops are entitled to issue pastorals and I do not think we should be critical of the Church on that account.
With regard to the anti-divorce lobby I should like to pay tribute to the sane and sound leadership of my friend and colleague, Senator Desmond Hanafin. I know he takes an opposite view to mine but I respect his views. I re-echo Senator Hanafin's hope that the debate will be conducted in a calm and dignified manner. I do not want to see this debate break down like the pro-life amendment debate. I do not want that to happen to the country any more and I hope that, arising out of the divisions and horror stories of how both sides acted during that campaign, we have matured enough since then to offer balanced arguments one way or the other.
On another occasion I said that as a Catholic legislator I would much prefer that the legislation enacted by the Dáil reflected in essence Catholic morality as I understand it. However, as I stated on that occasion, I was not elected to represent one religion but rather to represent all those of whatever different views, backgrounds or religions in this society who vote in Dáil elections. That is reasonable. I am not apologising for being a Roman Catholic. I am not pretending other than that I am a Catholic, but is anybody seriously suggesting to me, in particular, the Catholic Church, that this is a Catholic Parliament for a Catholic people? I do not think anybody can propose that or sustain the argument. I am not denying my Catholicity but I am rejecting the notion that I as a Catholic in this Legislature should be required to legislate for Catholics only. For that reason I endeavour to reflect in my approach to legislation the changing attitudes and beliefs amongst Irish people to moral and social issues.
While politicians may cast a jaundiced eye on opinion polls, nevertheless, I must not ignore the significant change to divorce reflected in those polls, particularly in the last 18 months. May I hurriedly say that my views on this, or on any other matter, are not swayed one way or another by opinion polls. When I reach a decision about an issue I generally stick to it unless I can be dissuaded otherwise. Opinion polls in recent months have been significantly in favour of the proposal before us. According to the latest opinion poll, published in The Sunday Press, a majority of 58 per cent of the people are in favour of the Government's referendum. According to that poll 60 per cent of voters would like the Catholic Church to play what could be described as a passive role in the divorce debate.
Politicians ought to adopt a similar approach. If ever there was a debate which should separate Church and State, politicians and individuals, this is such a debate. The issues that arise in this debate are intensely personal and in many cases heartbreaking for the individuals concerned. The last thing that should happen is that politicians should attempt to lay down general moral guidelines for the electorate at large. At the end of the day it will be the individual moral conscience of the voter which will decide his or her approach to the referendum. For Catholics that approach may well be guided by the theology of their own Church but would also take into account the reality of broken marriages in Ireland today. In not opposing the holding of the referendum Fianna Fáil are reflecting their sensitivity to the intensely personal nature of the issues which have to be debated in this House. I said, in the course of my contribution in the House in November last, that if all political parties in this House were to refrain from making this a political matter, allowing the debate to develop from outside the Dáil rather than from within, there would be a realistic chance of the referendum being passed. In that contribution I went on to appeal to the leaders of all political parties, including the Fianna Fáil Party, to encourage open and rational discussion of the matter rather than taking hard and fast positions for or against. In some small way I believe I had an influence on the attitude adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party in their approach to this proposal. I am glad that during the course of a lengthy parliamentary party meeting the party arrived at this consensus — each individual to speak on his or her own account and, having done that, to stand back and let the people decide. That is an utterly reasonable and principled position to take.
I would make the same plea to all the different pressure groups involved in the debate outside this House, to refrain from making this a major Church/State conflict or an issue which would divide sections of the population for many years to come. That is not to say that we should sit on the fence and say nothing. As a politician I would be abrogating my responsibility, as one who has taken a stance on this issue, were I not to continue my support for a change. I know there will be statistics bandied about, some seeking to show that the new family will have a stronger constitutional position than the old, as witnessed by the number of speakers who were against the provision. Others will seek to establish that the children of a marriage where the parents have been divorced can never be properly provided for, as has already been contended by the anti-divorce lobby in the House. Statistical arguments can be very convincing. My good friend and colleague, Deputy Faulkner, a committed anti-divorce Member of the House, gave a fulsome statistical outline of what he considered to be the facts and statistics against divorce.
The thrust of the argument against divorce is that it represents a threat to the stability of family life and, thereby, to the social fabric of the nation generally. The anti-divorce groups point to the rising incidence of divorce in other countries, tending to show that the institution of marriage is under greater threat than ever before. Our Constitution is committed to the institution of marriage, more so than constitutions, written or unwritten, in other jurisdictions. Article 41 of our Constitution pledges to guard with special care the institution of marriage. The rights of the family, recognised by the Constitution, are antecedent and superior to all positive law. In my view the introduction of divorce need not be inconsistent with that pledge. What will be necessary is that the extended or new family does not receive any greater protection or legal authority than the marriage or the children of the marriage which has been dissolved. To achieve that the courts will have to be vigilant and vigorous in ensuring that proper provision is made for the dependent spouse and any child who is dependent on either spouse. We could not allow a situation to arise in which any concept of illegitimacy by stealth or accident come to be attached to the first family of a divorced person by reason only of the fact that they are the first rather than the new family of such a person. It will be necessary for the Government to go ahead with the proposed legislation to abolish the distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy so that the concept of legitimate or illegitimate has no validity or meaning within Irish law or family life. We will have to come to terms with the concept of an extended family in which the spouses of the new family have to accept a moral, social and financial relationship and commitment to the spouses and members of the first family. This may seem to be a novel concept but, if proper provision is to be made for dependent spouses and children, as is provided for in the proposed amendment, then the concept of the extended family may well be the most compassionate and psychologically sensible way of approaching the problem.
Many different propositions will be put in the course of this debate — that divorce casuses marital breakdown; divorce is merely a symptom of breakdown; divorce leads to a general lowering of moral standards and principles. All of these issues have been the subject of debate for many years in other countries where divorce is commonplace. From my reading of those debates there are no simple solutions or hard and fast answers. William Duncan in his recent publication The Case for Divorce in the Irish Republic states that the weight of international evidence favours the view that divorce is merely a symptom of marriage breakdown. He goes on to say that divorce bears the same relationship to marital breakdown as does a funeral to the fact of death, that divorce is the burial ceremony for a marriage which is dead, not the cause of its death. He says that to deny divorce in an attempt to prevent marriages breaking down, is like forbidding funerals in the hope of eradicating the problem of death.
We have already provided in our laws for decrees of separation, nullity, barring orders, maintenance orders, almost every other order which can be made in relation to a marriage, except divorce. In other words, whether we like it or not, we already accept the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in Ireland and, to the extent to which it is possible, we should therefore provide in our laws. Why then should we not take the last step and accept that, where there is such an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, there should be divorce and the right to remarry for the spouses of broken marriages?
It is a cruel concept to consign a young couple, or not so young couple, whose marriage has broken down to a single state for the rest of their lives where such a single state is not desired. It is cruel, uncharitable and unfair to suggest that people cannot enter into a new relationship, the original one having broken down. The God to whom we all pray, whether we be Catholic, Protestant, Ba-hai, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jew, whatever, is a compassionate, forgiving, concerned God. He is a God whom I believe, in the final analysis, would forgive people whose first marriage has broken down for entering into a second one. That is the sort of God I believe in, a God of love, of compassion. I cannot envisage eternal damnation as the punishment for a second marriage, far from it, not from the God I believe in, the God I believe my Church asks me to believe in.
It is easy to contend that lives or homes are destroyed by marriage, just as it is easy to say that the breakdown of a marriage causes the disruption of the life of a spouse or child and of the home. We cannot avoid noticing that people form new relationships after broken marriages and have children by their new partners. Are we to condemn those people to a lifetime of illegal cohabitation and illegitimacy notwithstanding that, under our existing laws, we have fully accepted the fact that their previous marriage has irretrievably broken down? The estimated figure of broken marriages in Ireland at present is 35,000. That is not an insignificant number; it is a sufficiently large number to warrant attention. Taking that figure as being correct and assuming that there are at least two children to each such marriage, we arrive at a figure of 140,000 persons affected by the consequences of marriage breakdown. That is more than the population of Cork city or the combined population of, say, Galway, Waterford, Wexford and Dundalk. Therefore, it is manifestly absurd to suggest that a problem of national significance does not exist in the context of marital breakdown in Ireland today.
I have seen the weekly lists in the courts dealing with maintenance, barring orders, separation and all other facets which make up the marriage jurisdiction of the Irish courts. It would be a salutary lesson if politicians and members of the anti-divorce campaign were to take a look at what is happening in the area of marriage law here at the moment. They would only have to question the beleagured practitioners about their experiences with broken marriages to discover very quickly the extent of the demand for the right to remarry amongst very many members of these broken marriages.
There has been divorce in Northern Ireland for some years now, which has not led to a rampant abandonment of moral principles, or to a corruption of standards within the family. Traditional family life and family unity are strong in Ireland and will not be any less so in the years ahead because the inevitable victims of broken marriages have the right to form new and trusting relationships. To make comparisons between Ireland and California is absurd. The social and historical characteristics of our people are so different from those of the New World, the Western States of America that they will have little or no bearing on the way in which our moral standards will change or develop over the next generation.
During the course of the debate on contraception, we were told there would be large queues of young people outside every chemist shop where contraceptives were available. Here again that did not happen. The confusion which was predicted did not arise. The young people at that time were not given credit for their intelligence, their decency, their upbringing. In the circumstances of this proposal, those who are suggesting that young people will avail of divorce who are in strong and stable marriages at present are doing an injustice to that generation. They are being unfair.
In 1966 the Law Commission in England commenting on rising divorce figures stated:
These figures can reflect the fact that a growing segment of society is coming to regard divorce as more respectable than other outcomes of a broken marriage. They are therefore important figures for sociologists and people responsible for social policy, but they do not give cause for believing that morality is being corrupted in England, still less that it is the divorce law that is the corrupting agent.
By and large, there is a high moral climate for religious belief and observance in Ireland. To argue that in the final run, in an already extensive jurisdiction for the victims of broken marriage, divorce will lead to unlimate decay and disaster is unsustainable. We should support this proposed referendum and ensure by our actions and our laws, our examples and our history, that the strength rather that the weaknesses of human individuals in marriage are encouraged and maintained.
I am a practising Catholic and have been married for over 22 years. I believe very strongly in the strength of the family unit in society and my hope is that my marriage will continue until death do us part and that my children will themselves marry and have stable relationships with their partners in their turn, for life. Whilst a Catholic, nevertheless my role is as a legislator for the whole community, irrespective of the various religions. In my constituency of Dún Laoghaire, I have come into contact mainly with my co-religionists, having regard to their majority situation, but also with the various Protestant Churches and with my Jewish constituents. The Ba-hai religion adherents no later than two weeks ago made me a presentation of a tract. These are a group of people very severely and seriously persecuted by the Ayatollah in Iran. They are members of the community which I represent. I have met with the Seventh Day Adventists and with people of no religion or no religious beliefs. That is the type of Legislature which we should be seen to be.
My attitude to republicanism is that, whilst we in this political party, Fianna Fáil, bow to the shrine of a Protestant republican on the one hand, we should be seen to be representative of all classes and creeds. That is fundamental to my republicanism. I believe it is fundamental to the republicanism which was given to us by the founder of the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. de Valera, by men like Mr. MacEntee, Mr. Lemass, Mr. Frank Aiken and so many others — great men all. That sort of republic is the type of Ireland that they would like to see.
My mother was a practising republican and so was my father, in the best sense. They brought us up in a tradition of possibly old fashioned liberalism. That old fashioned liberalism continues to be my consistent and sustained philosophy, based on the equality of man and woman, on the concept of equal opportunity and on the ideal of merit winning out, that people should be rewarded for their endeavours rather than penalised for doing well for themselves. In other words, the philosophy of the begrudger was never part of my upbringing or my philosophy. Envy did not enter into it but rather in our circumstances we were proud if any of our family succeeded, or our cousins, and where our friends and neighbours were successful, whatever their calling, we were proud of and glad for them. That is the sort of Ireland that I would like to leave for my children and grandchildren.
I have a very strong belief in the marriage bond. We are not talking about a proposal which is compelling people to divorce. As Deputy Flanagan has said, if his figure is correct, 94 per cent of marriages in this country are successful and I have no doubt that 94 per cent will continue to be successful, with or without divorce, with or without this proposal. Fundamentally, I believe in the family unit. It is "the family" against the rest. We all love our own children but we are not obliged to love other children. The family is the fundamental unit in our society. It is a tremendously important sustaining factor in any society, strong family unit.
Having been in Mainland China, I suggest that a people who believe very deeply in this concept are the Chinese, not only in the immediate family but the extended family. They have a wonderful concept of family life, despite the fact that they are Communists, have Communist beliefs and do not believe in any religion. They have this wonderful feeling for the family. Mao has done a lot for China since the warlords were driven out ahead of his marching armies in 1949.
Divorce is not compulsory. It is like censorship, which happily is not that great a burden on the Irish people anymore, but we can engage in self-censorship. If I do not want to listen to Mr. Gay Byrne in the morning, I can turn off the radio and if I do not want to look at the "Late Late Show" on a Friday night, I can turn it off. Equally I can leave them on. These are all decisions to be made by the individual concerned. We are all adults. There are those who say that marriage is not dissoluble. If that is so, can they tell me why it is annullable? On one hand, the Church can annul marriages and on the other hand the civil law of the State does not allow divorce. These are questions that must be answered. I believe that in a democracy divorce is a civil right, quite simply. You can accept it or you can reject it.
It is underestimating the intelligence of the people not to have the proposed amendment of the Constitution. If I were to be absolutely honest about it, it is a provision I would not have put into the Constitution in 1937, in which case, we would not be discussing this proposal now. I am certain that the Constitution of 1937 strengthened the fabric of our society and set standards for the society in which we are living today. Its advantages continue to be apparent. It would have made no difference whatever to the strong fabric of the society in which we are living today had the 1937 Constitution not have contained the divorce provision.
I happened to have been a member of the New Ireland Forum and a signatory to its report as were the following: Charles J. Haughey TD; Brian Lenihan TD; Gerry Collins TD; Eileen Lemass TD; Ray MacSharry TD; Rory O'Hanlon TD; Jim Tunney TD; John Wilson TD; Garret FitzGerald TD, Taoiseach; Peter Barry TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Myra Barry TD; Senator James Dooge; Paddy Harte TD; John Kelly TD; Enda Kenny TD; Maurice Manning TD; Dick Spring TD, Tánaiste and Minister for Energy; Frank Cluskey TD; Senator Stephen McGonagle; Frank Prendergast TD; Mervyn Taylor TD; John Hume MP, MEP; Séamus Mallon — now thankfully an MP; Austin Currie; Joe Hendron; E. K. McGrady with the various substitutes. All of these individuals of all different political persuasions put their names to this report. The report at page 27, paragraph 5.2 (6) states:
Civil and religious liberties and rights must be guaranteed and there can be no discrimination or preference in laws or administrative practices, on grounds of religious belief or affiliation; government and administration must be sensitive to minority beliefs and attitudes and seek consensus.
Surely, that is what we are about here today: we are seeking a consensus. That is what the New Ireland Forum calls for. That is what I along with these individuals who signed the report believe it means.
Chapter X of the Report of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown in connection with divorce states:
The Committee is of the opinion that:
The referendum should be held in relation to the question whether the Oireachtas should be empowered to introduce divorce legislation.
Any such referendum should be in a positive format, replacing the present Article 41.3.2º of the Constitution with a provision, specifically authorising the Oireachtas to legislate for the dissolution of marriage.
Any such amendment should be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the basic emphasis of Article 41 is not altered, in that the Article should continue to place a duty on the State to protect the family and the institution of marriage and to recognise the family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society.
If any such referendum should be held and should be passed:
—the referendum is going to be held and hopefully it will be passed——
(a) A situation of divorce on demand would not be appropriate in this country and would not be acceptable to the people.
(b) It is essential that adequate safeguards must be built into any divorce legislation to take account of the State interest in fostering and protecting marriage and the family.
(c) It is essential that any divorce legislation should make proper provision for the protection of the dependent spouses and the welfare of dependent children who might be affected by the grant of a decree of divorce.
(d) Any such divorce legislation should be based on the concept of marital breakdown.
(e) A decree of judicial separation should be a first step whereby a person could apply after a fixed period of time, from the granting of a Judicial Separation, for a decree of divorce.
We run straight across to the proposal before the Dáil. That reflects exactly the proposal under the heading of divorce in the Report of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown. Who are the signatories to that report: Dáil Members: Myra Barry, Eileen Desmond, Dick Dowling, Pádraig Flynn, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Mary Harney, Willie O'Brien, Rory O'Hanlon, Alan Shatter, Madeline Taylor-Quinn, Michael Woods; Seanad Members: Katharine Bulbulia, Tras Honan, Thomas Hussey, Catherine I B McGuinness and Mary T W Robinson.
The constitutional proposal, therefore arises almost directly fully clothed from the proposal of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown. I find very little wrong with the verbiage of the proposal, very little. I do not know whether we as a party can genuinely offer amendments when the Bill comes to be discussed in committee. If one examines the proposal — I shall not quote it as that would be wasting parliamentary time — there is only one area where I would imagine difficulty may arise. I have no doubt that that difficulty will be dealt with by the Minister concerned on Committee Stage. It is the question, what is the meaning of the word "failed"? How does the word "failure" present itself in this proposal? Apart from that the proposal as a whole could be submitted to the people and, in those circumstances, we as politicians should stand back from the debate. Obviously, the Government have taken the decision that they will involve themselves in the debate. Personally, I think it is the wrong decision. It is a decision that will raise more problems than it will solve. The Government are entering into a divisive situation, which is unfortunate. Fianna Fáil have taken the right decision in their attitude to this debate. It is a principle decision and the proper one.
Let me conclude by quoting from the 1967 Report of the Committee on the Constitution where the question of divorce was raised. I happened to be a member of that committee. I had the honour and the privilege of sitting with some great persons in the history of this House. Even at that time these individuals were discussing a proposal to do away with the religious bias against divorce and to allow the minority religions to practise in accordance with their religious views in the context of divorce. I quote from page 46, paragraph 129:
The opinion has been expressed that these provisions constitute discrimination on the grounds of religious profession or belief within the meaning of Article 44.2.3º and that at least the penal provisions of the existing code will be declared not to have been carried over under the Constitution. We recommend that this difficulty be removed by adding a suitable provision to this part of the Constitution to the effect that the prohibition on religious discrimination shall not prevent the enactment of different procedural rules relating to different kinds of marriage ceremonies with a view to ensuring that all legal rules are complied with by the parties concerned.
With respect to all of us at that time, the solution was, to say the least of it, impractical but it was a genuine effort on a very seriously considered topic and subject and a very seriously offered solution to a very serious problem.
It is interesting to note that, like the committee of the New Ireland Forum, the Committee on the Constitution sat for over a year. It was constituted in August 1966 when Mr. Lemass was Taoiseach. It reported on 14 December 1967. It is also interesting to look at the names on that committee. They included the late Don Davern, my friend and colleague, who served initially but who was happily promoted to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture. He made way for Mr. Lemass, who ceased to be Taoiseach in September 1966. I attended the parliamentary party meeting which elected Mr. Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. The names on the constitutional review committee were: George Colley, Chairman, David Andrews, James Dooge, Seán Dunne, Denis F. Jones, Seán F. Lemass, Robert M. Molloy, Michael O'Kennedy, Thomas F. O'Higgins, Eoin Ryan, Gerard Sweetman and James Tully. It cannot be gainsaid that these people who were in some instances the founders of our nation, seriously considered and tackled the problem which is now confronting us. I commend to anybody the chapter in their report dealing with marriage. It is worth reading, evaluating and translating from that period, 1967 to 1986. It would be a valuable piece of research.
I will conclude by repeating that I will give the benefit of my silence to the Irish people. When the debate is concluded in this House and in the Seanad I will wait for referendum day, go to my local polling booth in Blackrock and vote for the constitutional amendment.
