Gay couples have ‘no right to marry’ under Constitution

SAME sex couples do not have the right to marry under the Irish Constitution, lawyers for the State told the High Court yesterday.

Counsel for the State Mr Paul Gallagher SC told the court that the wording in the Constitution that deals with marriage “clearly relate to a union between a man and a women,” and it was impossible to conclude that the term referred to relationships between people of the same sex.

Mr Gallagher was making the submissions on behalf of the State in the continuing action, being heard by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

They claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in the Province of British Columbia in 2003, is not recognised they should have the right to marry within the State.

The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.

Mr Gallagher said that the wording of the Constitution in relation to marriage was “plain and unambiguous.”

There was nothing that “would alter the natural meaning of those words.”

When it came to interpreting the Constitution, “plain words must be given a plain meaning.”

He said that any interpretation that the constitution allows same sex couples the right to marry is incorrect.

Mr Gallagher also said that there was no legal statute that allowed the concept of marriage to be radically changed.

Marriage is an institution between two people of the opposite sex, which was given “special protection,” under the Constitution.

He added that the plaintiff’s suggestion that the Revenue Commissioners had acted unlawfully was either a “missinterpretation,” or was “wrong.”

The Commissioners had acted fairly towards the plaintiffs, and were subject to “unjust criticism.”

Mr Donal O’Donnell SC, also representing the State, said that plaintiffs were making a “bold claim,” which if upheld by the court would have a range of consequences.

The hearing, which is now in it second week, resumes today, when the court is expected to hear the conclusion of the State’s submissions and those on behalf of the plaintiffs.