Traditional marriage works best, but politicians are afraid to say so

OF ALL the articles of faith of the modern western politician, one must surely be the greatest: ‘where there is division, let us bring compromise.’

It eclipses all others, including the noble but impractical idea that, where there is division, you should identify the right thing to do and fight for it.

Over much of the terrain covered by politics, the compromise principle works well. By accommodating the aspirations of all parties, it prevents wars and divvies out resources in a more or less equitable fashion.

But there are times when it doesn’t work so well. A good example of this arose last week with the report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. It has recommended to the Government that the constitution’s provisions on the family remain unchanged. This means the State will continue to pledge to guard with special care ‘the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded.’

The committee’s proposals have discomfited, up to a point, campaigners for same-sex marriage and various groups representing non-traditional family types who wanted to see the constitutional preference for the family based on marriage confined to the dustbin of history.

But the legislators hadn’t much choice, it seems. According to committee chairman Denis O’Donovan, 80% of the submissions they received wanted no change to the status of the traditional family.

But all is not lost for the advocates of change. The committee is recommending legislation to allow civil partnerships for cohabiting and same-sex couples. These arrangements would get ‘marriage-like’ privileges in taxation and other areas.

It was clear from Bertie Ahern’s comments in India some days earlier that change of this kind was what he has in mind, too. His rationale for not going further and introducing same-sex marriage was interesting. For one thing, he had not been asked by any of the groups representing homosexual people to allow for this.

“They have continually stated to me that the kind of issues they want addressed are primarily ones to do with inheritance, ones to do with insurance rights.”

He thought a referendum on gay marriage ‘could be a divisive issue’ and wouldn’t be passed. These comments from the Taoiseach can be summed up as ‘I would if I could, lads.’ He would have done more, but sure it wouldn’t pass. This approach also allows Fianna Fáil to comfort its traditional base. “Didn’t we keep the family intact?” the grassroots will be told.

Time will tell. What really emerges from the Taoiseach’s comments and the recommendations of the committee is a determination to avoid a row at all costs while liberalising our legal and social arrangements on family life by stealth. The Oireachtas committee disagreed about what to do, but not on any grounds of principle.

Like the Taoiseach, the FF, FG and PD committee members all felt that a constitutional amendment to widen the definition of the family and to allow for gay marriage would lead to a divisive referendum. The minority of Labour, Sinn Féin and Green members thought there should be equality among all family forms, including lone parents and cohabiting couples with children.

Neither argument is particularly impressive. The claim that we should avoid a divisive referendum at all costs is weak. Sometimes, important social change is necessary. The fact that a referendum might be divisive may be an argument for treading cautiously, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t tread at all.

The argument is useful camouflage for some, however. Some politicians believe same-sex marriage is not a good idea. They may want the traditional marriage-based family to retain its privileged constitutional status. But they won’t say so.

They fear the hectoring judgmental language of liberal campaigners and their media supporters who portray all opposition to social change as backward, unthinking and narrow-minded.

Last week the chief executive of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Keith O’Malley, regretted that the Oireachtas committee had not come up with ‘conclusions reflecting a more open and tolerant Ireland’ - ie, same-sex marriage. Since nobody likes to be described as closed and intolerant, the pressure to support Mr O’Malley’s agenda is great. Whether support for same-sex marriage really represents an open and tolerant position, however, is highly-debatable. Yet in a country where the media doesn’t often ask the hard questions of the liberal position, it is hard for people to make a stand.

BUT some of our politicians really should. There is a wealth of information and analysis out there to show that children do better with the traditional family model. That children should ideally enjoy the society of their biological father and biological mother throughout their formative years should not be seen as an outdated concept when study after study is bearing it out.

This is the single most important argument for keeping the constitutional link between marriage and the family, and for disallowing same-sex marriage (since the right to marry would inevitably lead to the right to adopt children). But remarkably, we don’t know whether and for how long the all-party committee deliberated about which domestic arrangements actually serve the common good and whether the law has any role in supporting such arrangements.

My guess is they didn’t dwell on it for very long. For one thing, there is the fear factor described above.

Secondly, you have the all pervasive notion that changing lifestyles must be reflected in changing laws, regardless of the common good. There were now 21 different family forms, the One Parent Exchange Network claimed last week, and they should all be recognised equally.

But equality is not necessarily the answer. The role of the law is not simply to reflect what is going on in society. Politicians should ask what works well for society, and legislate accordingly.

Otherwise they would have to legalise polygamy should a public appetite for it spring up at some stage.

The danger in the present situation is that, under cover of respecting the traditional family in the constitution, the Dáil may be at risk of undermining it in legislation. One way of undermining the constitution is to ignore it.

Take the provisions of article 41.2. in which the State recognises that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved,” and pledges to “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of her duties in the home.”

Leaving aside the claims of sexism in the language of this provision, was there ever a constitutional aspiration so pointedly ignored as this one? Charlie McCreevy’s introduction of tax individualisation some years back was entirely to the disadvantage of two-parent, one-income families. In a society where house prices and the cost of living forces both parents to work outside the home, such a provision illustrates how hollow constitutional rights can really be.

The constitution may say one thing, but legislators can act in an entirely contrary spirit.

For example, by conferring the same tax benefits on cohabiting couples as are applied to married couples they would undermine marriage.

Those who believe that the welfare of children depends on strong State support for marriage will not derive much comfort from the maintenance of the constitutional status quo but will watch with interest to see what our legislators do next.