Debate contribution: Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Update

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .

MLA
Dr Caoimhe Archibald
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
2 July 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Update
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4529202

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Work is at an advanced stage. My officials briefed the Finance Committee on the marriage and civil partnership Bill a number of weeks ago. Finance Committee members were supportive of the changes. I circulated a paper to Executive colleagues on 21 May and asked for it to be tabled at our Executive meeting on 13 June. Once Executive approval has been secured, my officials are ready to engage with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I would have liked to have been in the position of having secured that approval before the summer recess, but I am hopeful that the legislation can be introduced next year and the law can be amended before the end of the current mandate.

119 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.26No
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.98
No identity-related subject0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification