Jersey Evening Post: Monday 1 December 2014
BBC Radio Jersey: Sunday 30 November 2014 (timecode: 01:04)
Pink News: Friday 28 November 2014
Jersey Evening Post: Wednesday 26 November 2014
Jersey Evening Post: Thursday 27 November 2014
Channel Television: Wednesday 26 November 2014
BBC Radio Jersey: Wednesday 26 November 2014 (timecode: 01:07)
BBC News: Wednesday 26 November 2014
Bailiwick Express: Thursday 27 November 2014
Trans* Jersey and Liberate met with Chief Minister Ian Gorst on 21 November 2014 to discuss the findings of the consultation into the question of whether it is appropriate to introduce legislation to equalise marriage in Jersey.
Consultation results
The online survey conducted by the Chief Minister’s office had 1,094 respondents and 161 people wrote letters on the subject. This represents an amazing level of response and bears witness to strongly held opinions on both sides of the debate.
However, this only represents 1.5% of the population and, inevitably, only those members of the population who feel strongly about the subject. It was no surprise, therefore, to learn that 54% of respondents were for and 46% were against equal marriage. The closeness of the result is probably not representative of the population as a whole but speaks to the fact that about 10% of the population are LGBTQ and about 10% of the population are regular churchgoers, both parties being well mobilised and well versed in the arguments for and against.
Of the three options offered for making equal marriage a reality, the responses were as follows –
On the question of allowing humanist marriages to take place, 50% agreed that they should, but the lack of comments on this issue was interpreted to mean either a lack of understanding of the issue or a lack of real interest in seeing it happen.
On the question of opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, 75% were in favour. However, the comments from respondents indicated that this option was less about equality and more about greater legal protection for co-habiting couples.
On the question of parity of law for same-sex and opposite-sex couples where adultery is concerned, 65% were for equalising the law.
Of the options offered for equalising the law on adultery, the responses were as follows –
This result spoke to concerns that fidelity is important within any marriage and that to remove adultery from law is to make fidelity appear less important.
In addition, a number of points came out of the consultation –
The proposal
Based on his findings, the Chief Minister will be bringing forward the following proposal for legislation –
Timetable
The Chief Minister will report his findings to the States Chamber on 26 November 2014. The proposition will be brought in the first quarter of 2015 with a request for the States to approve the time frame and the process of legal change. Because there are extensive amendments that need to be made to other laws, a clear order of progress is required. (For example, within taxation law, a couple in a civil partnership can elect which partner is treated as the main taxpayer but, for a married couple, it is always the husband who is automatically the main taxpayer. This is clearly inequitable and needs amending.)
It is anticipated that Jersey will have same-sex marriage by the end of 2017.
You can download the full report on the consultation here.
Trans* Jersey welcomes the Chief Minister’s report on equal marriage, especially its handling of the particular trans issue of the spousal veto.
Trans* Jersey met with Chief Minister, Ian Gorst, to discuss the findings of the consultation into the question of whether it is appropriate to introduce legislation to equalise marriage in Jersey. The resulting report is a significant document that has been compiled with consideration of both sides of the argument for and against equal marriage and, as such, is welcomed by Trans* Jersey.
Trans* Jersey’s founder, Vic Tanner Davy, said: “We are impressed by the work done by the Chief Minister and his department in addressing all aspects of the issue thoroughly and with great understanding.”
The report also addresses the issue of the so-called “spousal veto” that exists within the same-sex marriage law of England and Wales, but not the equivalent Scottish law.
Vic Tanner Davy again: “The spousal veto is a nasty piece of legislation that demands a trans person in a marriage asks permission of their spouse before applying for their gender recognition certificate, which makes them for all legal purposes their affirmed gender. This inclusion in the England and Wales law spoke to the concerns of some MPs that the non-trans party to an opposite-sex marriage would be forced into a same-sex marriage because of their spouse’s legal transition.
“In reality, a person’s transition does not happen overnight. It takes at least two years of living as your affirmed gender before you can apply for a gender recognition certificate in the UK. During those two years, a trans person will have undergone gender therapy, most likely started hormone therapy and may have had gender reassignment surgery. If their spouse is still with them at the point that the trans partner applies for their gender recognition certificate, they will already be aware that they are living in a marriage that, to the outsider, has changed.
“Transitioning is difficult and stressful at times as every trans person endeavours to maintain partnerships and family relationships intact throughout the process. The last thing they need is added pressure from the state intervening in what is a private matter between the two people who are party to the union. We are, therefore, delighted that the Chief Minister has taken this into consideration and will be proposing the Scottish model for dealing with the issue. This will enable marriages to change seamlessly between same-sex and opposite-sex with no requirement for divorce and re-marriage or for spousal permission when one party to a marriage transitions.”
On Tuesday 8 July 2014, the States of Jersey approved an amendment by Senator Ian le Marquand to the proposition to allow same-sex marriage that had been brought by Deputy Sam Mezec. The amendment effectively stalled the progress towards equal marriage in Jersey by making it subject to a consultation by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst. Apparently, many of those who voted for the amendment did so because of the immoderate language being used by supporters of the original bill. The words “homophobia” and “homophobic” were used on more than one occasion to describe others with opposing views.
On the very same day, Trans* Jersey received two emails from trans* islanders, independently, reporting that they had been the victims of abuse and assault. In both cases, they were physically at risk of injury. In both cases, the attacks were simply because the victims were trans*. As you can imagine, Tuesday was not a good day for Trans* Jersey.
However, the two reports put the States’ debate into perspective and meant that we did not vent our disappointment over the States’ decision by calling-out politicians on Facebook or Twitter as some did. Apart from acknowledging that there might have been any number of reasons why a States’ member voted against same-sex marriage, such as feeling ill-prepared for the debate, there is another reason why we should be moderate in our response to setbacks in the struggle for equal marriage.
Nobody in the States’ chamber on Tuesday was homophobic. Those who have been the victims of homophobia, transphobia or biphobia know it when they see it. *Phobia isn’t an off-colour joke or a misuse of a pronoun or a disagreement over equal marriage. It is a deep-seated hatred of LGBT people that makes a person capable of acts of verbal or physical cruelty to the target of his or her hate. Until you have been the victim of a hate crime, you cannot know *phobia. There is something in the eyes, something in the tone of voice, that LGBT people recognise as *phobic. It’s when the adrenalin starts pumping and the body goes into fight or flight mode.
When a white, heterosexual, male calls people who don’t share his political view on same-sex marriage “homophobic”, he needs to be very careful. Overuse and misuse of any word can remove its power. Homophobia, transphobia and biphobia are important words to the LGBT community for they are they only way we have of describing the most heinous of crimes against us. These words must not be cheapened by those who are unlikely ever to be the target of a homophobic, transphobic or biphobic attack.
Trans* Jersey would like to say to our allies: thank you for your support, thank you for fighting for equality for us, thank you for being allies, but please be careful of the language that you use when you speak on our behalf.
And then, on Saturday 12 July 2014, this happened. Estimates of the number of people who turned out vary but there were certainly hundreds, possibly 1,000 people there. King Street was filled with love, pride and lots of rainbows for what was Jersey’s first ever LGBTQ rights march or equality rally or pride parade. In the end, nobody was sure what it was and, actually, it didn’t seem to matter. We were there to show that we exist. Every human population has an LGBT community. Visible or forced underground, it is there. Our detractors conveniently forget that fact but, sometimes, we do too and when we do, even an island of 9 miles by 5 miles where “everyone knows everyone”, can seem like a lonely place. Saturday was about reminding ourselves that we aren’t alone, that there are others like us, others who also share our desire for equality.
Rallies often don’t accomplish much but this one felt different. This one felt like a moment of change. Maybe because, during the week, the feelings of anger towards the States for their decision dissipated and were replaced with a feeling of solidarity. Trans* Jersey thanks the organisers of Saturday’s event for being the catalyst that brought us all together in Liberation Square. Every LGBT person in Jersey now knows, for sure, that there is a community here to which they belong and who will stand up for their beliefs in a fair and equal society.
Listen again on Radio Jersey (from 6 July 2014, timecode 42:00)
Listen again on Radio Jersey (from 27 June 2014, timecode 38:00)
Letter to the Jersey Evening Post on 13 June 2014:
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.
In 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.
This week Guernsey moved a step closer to equal marriage with a clever proposal for a Union Civile law that would remove religion from laws related to marriage. You can read more about the story here or visit Liberate’s website for more information about the work they have been doing.
The proposed law would mean that all those who wanted to marry would do so in a civil ceremony. Thus, in one bold stroke, all marriages between two people, irrespective of their sex or gender, would be equal in Guernsey. The ability to legally marry a couple would be removed from religious organisations, which would also remove the knotty question for people of faith as to whether their church should “allow” same-sex marriage.
Under the proposal, there would be nothing to stop a couple celebrating their wedding through a religious service after they had legally tied the knot civilly. Under current EU legislation, there is no means by which a religious organisation could be forced to offer a celebratory service to a same-sex couple if it is against their religious beliefs. This should satisfy the churches that the legislation does not stop them from celebrating marriages as they understand them in the way that they wish.
Trans* Jersey stated that we would be in favour of adopting the Scottish model for same-sex marriage legislation, but this new development from Guernsey is even better. It does away with the UK system of two laws, one for opposite-sex couples and one for same-sex couples, in favour of one law for everyone.
We are in favour of adopting Guernsey’s proposal here in Jersey as it would solve the problem that trans people have when they transition within a marriage. Under Guernsey’s proposal, the marriage stays intact and the transition has no effect on its status. This also resolves the problem, perceived by some, that a person’s transition alters or diminishes the partnership somehow. Under this proposal, there is no alteration of the partnership and, therefore, the spouse has no reason to require a veto to stop their partner’s transition.
Deputy Sam Mezec lodged a proposition with the States of Jersey this week to debate same-sex marriage in July. We will have to wait for more news on what Jersey’s proposed legislation will look like, but Trans* Jersey hopes that it will resemble Guernsey’s forward-thinking and elegantly simple proposal.
Documentary about eight families with transgender or gender non conforming children.
Trans* Jersey 