The All-Party Oireachtas Committee report on the Constitution is a politically pragmatic attempt to give greater recognition to non-marital family units, writes Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent
Seventy years ago, under the watchful eye of Éamon de Valera, the decision to include a constitutional reference to the family in Bunreacht na hÉireann was a novel step.
Influenced by the Catholic church and papal encyclicals of the time, it was - as the Constitution Review Group has pointed out - clearly drafted with only one family in mind: the family based on marriage.
In contrast to the US constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann recognised the family as the natural unit of society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptable rights. It also pledged to guard with special care the institutions of marriage and protect it against attack.
De Valera would be wiping his eyes in disbelief if he examined the state of the Irish family today. Around half of first children born to mothers are outside marriage. One-parents families account for 11 per cent of the population. Cohabiting couples now account for one-in-12 of all family units. Of these, around 1,300 said they were same-sex couples.
The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has been charged with making recommendations aimed at making the little blue book reflect some of the changes in Irish society.
Following a year-long process of consultation, public hearings and private deliberations which prompted extraordinary interest - 8,000 detailed submissions and 16,000 petitions - the committee is due to issue its recommendations in the coming weeks.
Drafts of its report and internal minutes seen by The Irish Times show that the committee is set to take a politically pragmatic approach in its recommendations and seek to appease both traditionalists and reformers
It will avoid changing the definition of the family as being based on marriage, in contrast to proposals made by the Constitution Review Group in 1996 which advocated changes which would respect family life "whether based on marriage or not".
Instead, it will seek to recognise other relationships through legislative change and provide greater equity in the area of taxation for cohabiting couples through a "bundle of marriage-like privileges". Implicit in this recommendation is a form of civil partnership, that has been advocated by gay rights campaigners such as Senator David Norris.
There is also, it appears, a good dollop of realpolitik included in the committee's decision to avoid changing the constitutional definition of the family.
By continuing with the elevated status of the conventional family, and recognising other partnerships through legislative measures, it tries to keep everyone happy. The Government, if it takes the recommendations on board, can argue that it is promoting fairness for all, while at the same time protecting the status of the family as being based on marriage.
A constitutional amendment that would change the definition of the family and be seen to provide for gay marriage would doubtless spark a divisive referendum along the lines of the highly-charged abortion debates.
Another important change advocated by the committee is a constitutional amendment to underpin the individual rights of children, whatever the circumstances of their birth, through recognising the "best interests of the child".
The would go some way towards giving greater recognition to natural fathers who have established a relationship with a child. They have no constitutional rights at present.
Legislative change to strengthen the natural father's position in procedures in the family law courts is also recommended. This constitutional change would also, arguably, provide more support for single mothers by giving further support to their family unit.
Politically, there are signs the conclusions will be acted upon. Cohabiting couples, who are being discriminated against under the tax laws, are a substantial and disgruntled voting bloc. A High Court case in which a lesbian couple say they are being discriminated against is looming against the Government.
While demographic means the Constitution of 1937 is long out of date, it is wrong to suggest there is now a consensus on where we go from here. Considerable diversity in family units means there are a variety of views on what constitutes the family. For example, of the thousands of petitions and submissions received by the committee, at least 60 per cent argued against changing the constitutional status of the family.
While not radical or hugely progressive, the committee's recommendations are at least politically deliverable. This raises the prospect the recommendations will be acted upon by Government, rather than be left to gather dust along with other recommended constitutional changes.