Comhar Criostai,

THE CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY PARTY,

14 Frederick Street North, Parnell Square. Dublin 1.

01-8783529,mobile087 913 0869E-mail: comharcriostai@eircom.net

Dear Deputy And SenatorsUnprecedented Threat to Religious Freedom: Dáil to Debate Bill on November 2

The Civil Partnership Bill

, which includes provisions that would severely restrict the rights of religious believers in Irelandis expected to come before the Dáil on November 2. The recent agreement between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party on therevised programme for government commits them to enacting this Bill, along with a range of other radical social policies.

Marriage is of immense but often underestimated value to Irish society

We can too easily take marriage for granted, but it needs to be supported if it is to flourish. This Bill is a direct threat to theinstitution of marriage and is a declaration by the State that it does not consider marriage to be worthy of special support.This is in violation of the Constitutional protection of marriage.

The family based on marriage gives children the optimum start in life

Marriage provides most children with their best chance of growing up in a happy, stable, supportive family. Parents whomake a solemn legal commitment to each other are more likely to be committed to their children. They are also more likelyto stay together through their children’s formative years.

Proposals for legislation on Civil Partnership undermine marriage

By setting up civil partnerships which share most of the legal characteristics of marriage, this Bill would undermine thespecial status of marriage.

The legitimate rights of homosexual citizens can be guaranteed without the proposed law

Advocates of the Bill have claimed that such a law is necessary to address unjust discrimination suffered by homosexualcitizens. This is not true. If there are specific areas where homosexual citizens are unjustly discriminated against, these can be addressed by specific legal remedies. They do not require the creation of a legal institution analogous to marriage.

Only a handful of countries has chosen the path Ireland proposes to follow. Others have considered it and rejected it

While supporters of the Bill would like to give the impression that this is part of an irresistible international trend, this is notthe case. Only a very small minority of countries have introduced similar laws. Even within the EU, where such laws aremost common, only a minority of countries has introduced such laws and some of those are much more limited in scopethan the proposed Irish law. In other jurisdictions, legislation of this sort has not had the expected effect. In the UK, for example, an initial burst of enthusiasm for the novelty of civil unions was followed by a precipitous decline in the numbersavailing of them.

The Bill would impose severe restrictions on the rights to freedom of conscience and religion

This Bill will force those who believe in traditional marriage to act against their deepest held convictions or face legalaction. Photographers, printers, Church halls and anyone who provides services relating to weddings are among some of those who could find themselves being sued if they refuse, for conscientious or religious reasons, to provide services tosame-sex couples. This Bill treats those who believe in traditional marriage as equivalent to racist bigots. In fact, itrepresents the most aggressive attack on freedom of conscience and religion seen in this country for a long time and itwould be hard to find a similar example in any developed democracy.

It is a strange priority to pursue at a time of national economic crisis

The government has played down the likely cost of applying the proposed law. The complexity and frequent instability of homosexual relationships will, even if the numbers involved are small, add significantly to the burden on the family courts.There is also the likelihood that the legislation would be challenged in the European Court leading to changes which wouldadd significantly to the cost. In April 2008, the European Court of Justice, in the Maruko case, found against a private