Do the Iona Institute think the Irish public and their elected representatives are a few sultanas short of the full wedding cake? Well they must obviously with the latest line of lobbying that is underway with regard to the Civil Partnership Bill. Yesterday we heard that Iona Institute and their Director, my favourite passive aggressive, David Quinn, were invited in to address a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting. Also invited were GLEN and Church of Ireland committee representatives.

It is interesting don’t you think that no other Catholic Church body was invited in to address the meeting or were they? Have Iona suddenly been elevated to Church mouthpiece? In the same way GLEN seem to be regarded as speaking on behalf of the LGB community? (Yes I know they say they don’t and many wish they wouldn’t but you get my drift).

So the ruse that Iona began with on Prime Time a while ago of protecting the parish hall committee a few weeks ago is continuing – this is where someone from Iona says that Civil Partnership legislation should contain a conscientious objection clause because before you know it Jack and Steve will be able to do the indecent thing in the local parish hall and the parish committee won’t be able to object due to equality legislation. In today’s Sunday Times we now have the photographer and the printer mentioned as needing protecting should they refuse to take the photos at a civil partnership or print the invites. Not a lot of mention of the registrars these days because maybe people feel registrars are public servants and should be doing their jobs in the same way nurses and Gardai are expected to serve?

Any organisation or individual who ‘discriminates’ in the provision of employment rights, such as pensions, or who ‘discriminates’ in the provision of goods and services against individuals in a civil partnership will very likely find themselves on the wrong side of the law,� it claims. Iona said policy-makers had a choice of treating belief in “traditional marriage� as a “prejudice�, or protecting that belief as “legitimate�.

Senator Ronan Mullen describes it as a ‘conscience opt out’. Conscience cop out more like.

We all know that Iona Institute would rather not have Civil Partnership legislation introduced at all. But the proposed bill is so basic and non offensive (except of course to a lot of lesbians and gay men) that there is little for them to complain about. So they come along and pretend they are worried about the people who may be paid to provide services at these events who may not wish to do so. I’m wondering why they didn’t mention florists? Or do you think that they realised that most florists would be only delighted? What about wedding planners? Caterers? Hairstylists? Okay I know I’m guilty of stereotyping but I’m just giving you some assistance in seeing through the pile of rubbish that is Iona’s latest ruse.

Back to that FF Parliamentary Party meeting – there were 25 TD’s and senators in attendance and there is allegedly some discord within the party on the bill. Not as much Discord as there is over the proposed Drink Driving legislation and nothing like the discord there should be over NAMA.

David Quinn says that the examples they are giving and case they are making “have happened overseas. This interpretation isn’t some kind of phantasm.�

Lovely new word there phantasm – orgasm of thought for rightwingers?

As a Catholic Priest openly mentions, sympathises and grieves with partner of Stephen Gately and is widely praised for it, the Iona Institute have to dig deeply to raise the ire of traditional catholics in Ireland against any legislation protecting same sex relationships. Sure the local GAA club is now not safe as a traditional area of marital protection since Donal Óg came out. (Ok I know I’m going too far there – my next post will be on the GAA and their role in closet keeping in Ireland. )

So do you think the TD’s were told by GLEN that lots of people are deeply unhappy with the legislation? And that many families are not protected by it?

A Glen delegation addressed the meeting separately. Kieran Rose of Glen described the meeting as “positive, open and friendly�.

He added: “All of the debate was totally reasonable.�

I’m sure it was.