divorce

Trans* Jersey

Media links: Trans* Jersey welcomes equal marriage consultation

Pink News: Friday 29 August 2014

BBC Radio Jersey: Sunday 31 August 2014 (timecode: 02.09)

Channel Island equality charity Liberate and affiliate group Trans*Jersey welcome the States of Jersey’s consultation on equal marriage and partnership.

Jersey’s Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, launched a public consultation on equal marriage and partnership on 20 August 2014 that will run until 22 October 2014.

Following their meeting on 29 July 2014 with Senator Gorst, Liberate and Trans* Jersey are pleased with the results of the first stakeholder meetings and the options for equal marriage in Jersey arising from those initial discussions being put forward by the Chief Minister.

Jersey Co-ordinator for Liberate Vic Tanner Davy said:

“The options being offered to the public are ones that Liberate and Trans* Jersey supports and we have already responded positively to the suggestion that Jersey introduce same-sex civil marriage and same-sex religious marriage. Although truly equal marriage would be represented by the Union Civile, we have moved away from that position because of the disturbance that its introduction would cause to the long-standing relationship of the Church of England to the Crown and the State, something that would necessitate a much bigger and longer constitutional debate.

“We are also supportive of the proposal to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. In the interests of equality, this is the only fair thing to do. It is something that the UK has not done and for Jersey to be considering this option shows how committed the Chief Minister and his department are to ensuring we get this right as an island.”

The consultation document also addresses the question of whether adultery as grounds for divorce in a marriage should be removed or redefined to ensure that same-sex couples are treated equally. The current legal position is that an opposite-sex marriage can be ended by adultery but a same-sex civil partnership cannot.

“On the question of adultery, we would like to see adultery as grounds for divorce in a marriage removed because that would equalise the grounds on which a marriage or civil partnership can be dissolved. In so doing, it would no longer relegate the sexual congress of same-sex couples to something less than that of opposite-sex couples.

“Adultery is just as emotionally damaging to same-sex relationships as it is to opposite-sex relationships but it can be covered in law by citing the grounds for divorce/dissolution as “unreasonable behaviour”. We feel that all marriages and civil partnerships would be protected from sexual infidelity via this route and, therefore, removing adultery is appropriate in the interests of equality.”

Liberate congratulates the Chief Minister and his department on the sensitivity with which they have worded the consultation and the research they have undertaken, in a very short period of time, in order to produce a comprehensive document that covers all the main permutations for equal marriage and partnerships. The consultation paper is balanced and, as far as possible, gives equal weight to the considerations of both the LGBTQ community and those religious groups who feel they cannot solemnise same-sex marriages in their place of worship.

Martin Gavet, Chairman of Liberate, said:

“Liberate is an inclusive group and we welcome members regardless of race, gender, disability, religious belief, gender identity or sexual orientation. It is, therefore, very important to us that religious groups have a means to opt-out of performing same-sex marriages and their freedom of religious belief is maintained. The options put forward by the consultation paper make it clear that places of worship will be able to opt-out in line with the position of their organisation. Having said that, we also hope that in time religious organisations, which currently oppose same-sex unions, will grow in their understanding of LGBTQ issues and the spiritual needs of some of the LGBTQ community.”

Trans* Jersey

Open letter to Jersey’s politicians on equal marriage

Why civil partnerships do not make for equal marriage

For those who think that they were made some kind of promise by the gay community that civil partnerships would be enough to ensure equality, I can confirm that no such promise was made by the trans community who have always known that civil partnerships do not provide true equality. As Jersey law stands, a person in a marriage or civil partnership who undergoes gender reassignment whilst still in that union is severely discriminated against.

A key part of a transgender person’s journey is acquiring their gender recognition certificate (”GRC”) after two years of living as their true gender. It is a legal document that means for all purposes you are the gender you present. It enables a trans person to have all legal documents amended, including their birth certificate. It also provides a degree of privacy protection for the trans person because it is an offence under the Gender Recogntion (Jersey) Law to “out” someone in possession of a GRC, for example, when giving an employment reference.

Under current Jersey legislation, at the point at which a trans person in a marriage or civil partnership applies for their GRC, they are forced to dissolve their union. Having done so, they are then expected to re-make their union using the vehicle appropriate to their gender and the gender of their spouse. The choice for transgender individuals in this situation is clear: either, do not apply for your GRC and continue having your official documents “out” you; or, change your official documents at the cost of losing your legal ties to your family.

Anyone who has been through a divorce will know that not only are there costs involved, emotional and financial, but also that a divorce immediately stops the continuation of joint arrangements, such as pension provisions, insurance policies and wills, some of which cannot be re-started without severe penalty. And, if the union has produced children, the situation gets even more complicated. I think that all sides of the marriage argument would agree that nobody should be forced to go through a divorce.

lesbian-marriageIn 2006, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights developed a set of international legal principles on the application of international law to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These were called the Yogyakarta Principles and, whilst not adopted as an international standard, are cited by UN bodies and national courts, and many governments have made them a guiding tool for defining their policies in the matter. The European Commissioner for Human Rights has endorsed the Yogyakarta Principles, in particular principle number 3, and considers them an important tool for identifying the obligations of states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons, regardless of their gender identity.

Yogyakarta Principle number 3 states that, “Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom… No status, such as marriage or parenthood, may be invoked as such to prevent the legal recognition of a person’s gender identity.”

Whilst legislation exists that gives opposite-sex couples a different piece of paper from same-sex couples, there will always be an inequality at the heart of the island’s laws. Jersey is proudly bringing in the first piece of anti-discrimination legislation later this year and, yet, enshrined within its laws is a nasty little “gotcha” that discriminates against a person in a marriage or civil partnership who transitions. If Jersey is serious about improving its human rights credentials on the world stage, it needs to adopt the Yogyakarta Principles as an internationally recognised model of best practice and address anomalies within its legislation such as this.

This is why Trans* Jersey is supporting Guernsey’s proposition for a Union Civile that requires all couples, regardless of gender, to wed in a civil ceremony that registers the union for legal purposes. Having done the legal part, couples who then wish to seek a church service aligned to their religious beliefs regarding marriage can do so. This solves the argument over the definition of marriage that exercises religious and secular groups, and it enables a transgender person to acquire their GRC and alter the gender on their Union Civile certificate without having to divorce. It is an elegantly simple solution to the problem and one that we hope Jersey will also propose, debate and pass.

Trans* Jersey

Equal marriage support

Trans* Jersey supports Deputy Sam Mezec’s call for the States of Jersey to pass legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Trans* Jersey goes further and would support a move for the island to model its law on Scotland’s equal marriage legislation.

We support equal marriage because, as the law currently stands in Jersey, a transman or transwoman in a marriage or civil partnership and wishing to legally transition (by acquiring a gender recognition certificate (“GRC”)) must first obtain a divorce from their spouse. Divorce and re-marriage (via a civil partnership or marriage, depending on which way you are going!) carries with it not just costs but implications for the continuation of legal documents, such as wills, and pension provisions.

This is the only known example where the law requires someone to forgo one right (the right to remain married to their partner) in order to access another (the right to private life afforded by the Gender Recognition Act). This anomaly has led to some transsexual people in the UK deciding not to acquire a GRC, as they argue their marriage vows were for life and they object to the idea that their partner (by remaining with them and true to those vows) would be unfairly treated by dissolving the original bond.

When Scotland was considering equal marriage legislation, James Morton of the Equality Network and Scottish Transgender Alliance released this video explaining why equal marriage matters to trans and intersex people. Trans* Jersey agrees with the points he made.

When England introduced the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, they got it wrong. They included what has come to be called the Spousal Veto, a clause that allows spouses of transgender people to effectively stop them from legally transitioning (i.e. acquiring a GRC). Sarah Brown, the LibDem politician and trans* activist, explains why this is a problem here.

When Scotland passed its legislation, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, they got it right. They removed the need for transgender people to dissolve their marriage before be able to acquire a GRC; they have enabled people to have gender-neutral marriage ceremonies; and they secured the removal of the spousal veto.

An explanation from the Equality Network on what Scotland’s recently passed equal marriage bill will mean for trans and intersex people.

The Equality Network is a Scottish lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality charity: http://www.equality-network.org