Posts Tagged Equal Marriage
There does seem to be something about the LGb(t) community and awards, doesn’t there?
Pink News have played a blinder by giving their “parliamentarian of the year” award to Baroness Stowell. Yes, that’s the same Baroness Stowell that will cause hardened trans veterans of the same-sex marriage bill to wince when they hear her name, for it was her who gallantly defended the spousal veto as the bill passed through the House of Lords, shooting down every suggestion and compromise proposed on this and other trans-related topics.
It perhaps should not be too surprising that many people, both trans folk and allies, are somewhat miffed this morning at the news. At the time of writing, the only defence Pink News have put up is that it was an “independent panel of judges, although there would have been nothing to stop them shortlisting her in the first place…
— PinkNews (@pinknews) October 24, 2013
(The award was shared with Yvette Cooper, although it is not clear what in particular Yvette Cooper was singled out for an award when there were many people on all sides of the house who engaged far more above and beyond)
The trouble with these awards is that it is often a small panel, with perhaps one trans person on. Unless you’re very careful picking that person then they’re unlikely to have the breath of knowledge to avoid obvious (To us) SNAFUs such as this one. In this case, a non-politician from the trans community was asked to vote on the award and didn’t have the background knowledge (And would not have been expected to!) to brief others accordingly.
The fix is to ensure proper representation of trans folk within ostensibly LGBT+ organisations, for when the nominations are initially put together and on panels. Given how much more politically active out trans folk are compared to the wider out community, it is not sufficient to have just one trans person on a panel of ten. (Around one third of the elected LGBT+LibDems executive is non-cis – I don’t know the figures for other parties) Even if you base a panel on population numbers, remember the huge numbers of not-out, non-transitioning or pre-transition trans folk – up to 1% of the UK population, with a wide enough definition.
To tidy up a few loose ends, now that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 is an Act and not merely a Bill, here is a summary of its effects on the trans community.
None of this takes effect until the necessary procedures are put in place and the Secretary of State gives it the green light to go ahead – that’s not currently expected to happen for at least a year. As things stand, the first same-sex marriages will happen before the trans-related provisions are put into effect. It is also possible that procedures in practice will differ slightly from what’s intended from the legislation for practical or other reasons. We saw this happen with the Gender Recognition Act 2003.
Applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate
If you are applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate and you…
- Transitioned after 2008 & are not married or civil partnered then there is no change.
- Transitioned before 2008 & are married at the time of application, then you may be able to use the “Fast Track” procedure. The date is set at 6 years prior to the commencement of the relevant section and we don’t know when it will come into force yet, so it may end up being a cutoff date in 2009 if commencement doesn’t happen until 2015. The caveats for this are:
- Your marital status at the time of transition makes no difference. If you transitioned a decade ago but didn’t get a GRC because you were married but have subsequently been widowed, you can not use the Fast Track process. Conversely, you do not need to have been married at the time of transition and could get married for the sole purpose of obtaining a Fast Track GRC
- You must be “ordinarily resident” in Great Britain, i.e. excluding Northern Ireland. This appears to have been put in place to avoid complications with Northern Ireland but unfortunately rules out anyone born in this country and living abroad.
- “Fast Track” isn’t any faster from the Gender Recognition Panel’s point of view, it is a reduced documentary requirement – evidence of surgery or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I do not know if anyone tried this under the old Fast Track system when the GRA2003 first came into force, but it would appear that the surgery does not need to have been as an adult. This potentially allows someone with an intersex condition who is married to obtain Gender Recognition, something they were previously unable to do due to the lack of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
- The spousal veto still applies to fast track applications, regardless of how long you have been transitioned for.
- Are married at the time of application, then you can apply for Gender Recognition and remain married. Recognition would be subject to the Spousal Veto. If the spouse does not consent, then the old process applies which can take some time and is more expensive – apply for an Interim Gender Recognition Certificate, initiate annulment proceedings and hope your spouse isn’t looking to drag things out.
Interim GRCs do not grant any rights beyond the ability to apply for annulment of a marriage. It is likely quicker to apply for a normal divorce as that can be done without needing to wait to become eligible for a GRC. The intent of the Interim Gender Recognition Certificate was largely to allow couples to remain together after transition, as you cannot apply for a normal divorce if still living together.
- Are civil partnered then you need to convert your civil partnership to a marriage first, then apply for gender recognition as above. If you do not wish to convert to a marriage and remain together as a couple the only option is the Interim Gender Recognition Certificate and annul the Civil Partnership.
This is a consequence of mixed-sex civil partnerships being unavailable.
After obtaining Gender Recognition
- If you gave up your marriage and potentially pension rights under the old system by getting an Interim Gender Recognition Certificate and annulling the existing marriage/CP and were re-married/CPed, there is no mechanism for restoring that relationship or pensions.
- The situation for a wife of a trans woman (And only in that specific combination) is improved in the case where the trans person dies first and the wife is left with a survivors pension.
- Sections 12(h) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the civil partnership equivalent, section 50(e) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 remain in force – if you acquired gender recognition prior to getting married/civil partnered and your partner claims they did not know this, they may be able to get the marriage or civil partnership voided.
- The wording to be used in marriage ceremonies abd on marriage and birth certificates is, at this moment, unchanged. There is likely to be some further work in this area with post-enactment secondary legislation.
The below was sent to the BBC today at 23:18. It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to fix the article – or if they even bother, given they don’t usually cover trans issues at all. (I count exactly one direct reference since the start of June – the Cory Mathis bathroom case in the US. The remainder are references in passing, generally as part of defining what “LGBT” means and discussing pride events.
It seems you’re more likely to get referred to on BBC News for being a cis person making boots in large sizes or being a cis person getting an MBE for volunteering to help trans people than you are if you’re actually trans and campaigning on something. (The first story does mention a trans person in passing. It old-names them and uses some problematic and transphobic language presumably due to missing context in their quoting)
I am writing in relation to the article “Same-sex marriage set to enter law later this week” posted today on BBC News Online. It says:
“MPs decided not oppose a number of minor changes agreed by the House of Lords. Among these were protections for transgender couples, which will allow people to change sex and remain married.”
Ignoring the misleading statement about “opposing minor changes” (They were mostly, if not entirely, government amendments in the first place) the mention of amendments for transgender couples is incorrect. The provision to allow people to gain recognition of their gender whilst staying married, subject to a spousal veto, was part of the original bill. The Lords amendments altered the wording used to define the spousal veto and reintroduced a simplified version of gender recognition for those who transitioned many years ago.
The amendments would not allow anyone to gain gender recognition and remain married who would otherwise have been unable to do so.
The latest round of amendments to the Lords report stage of the bill are out, including government amendments which are almost certain to pass. There is nothing on the spousal veto yet which is not a good sign.
What has been included is reintroduction of the old Gender Recognition “Fast Track” process. As originally enacted back in 2004, this allowed people who had transitioned for a long time (6 years) an easier route to getting recognition. Rather than needing two reports from doctors, you only need one – either a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or evidence that you’ve had surgery to alter “sexual characteristics”. It was particularly important to those who transitioned many years prior but whose doctors were no longer practicing, meaning they could not get proper medical reports. It was however time-limited to applications for two years following the passage of the bill.
The gotcha with the reintroduced version is that you have to be married to take advantage of this. It doesn’t matter when you get married, so you could get married specifically for the purpose of getting Gender Recognition, as long as you transitioned six years ago. I can actually see this happening in some cases, it’s not just theoretical, as people get married for immigration reasons already.
If your partner has died before the bill passes or your marriage survived transition but you divorced later for other reasons you’re also out of luck and would have to use the standard process. Unless you remarry.
One could argue that this is actually incompatible with the Human Rights Act as it discriminates against single, divorced and widowed people, but I don’t know if such a claim would stand up in court. If anyone has about quarter of a million pounds to spare and wants a fast-track GRC, you could probably find out by taking this all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
The six years requirement for a fast-track GRC is also bizarre. Firstly, it’s not six years full time, it’s six years full time prior to the passage of the act. So if you’re currently five and a half years post-transition you may be out of luck.
Secondly, and this is the most objectionable part, the spousal veto is explicitly included. So you can have married someone and stayed with them for six years post-transition or even married/civil partnered them after they transitioned, and the government is still asking you for permission for them to get legal recognition.
Whatever the actual intent, that just comes across as a deliberate attempt to be spiteful by the government.
It seems that the civil service spends much of it’s time trying to figure out ways of limiting any rights granted to trans folk as much as possible. The law in this country would be in a much better state if it spent that effort working towards equality instead.
Looking at the specific requirements, the reintroduced version is broadly similar to the original. The surgical requirement as an alternative to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is somewhat genital essentialist and a concern for those who can’t undergo surgery for medical reasons or would prefer not to, but in line with how thinking was a decade ago. If six years full time on it’s own isn’t enough to convince the government you are serious about your gender, I don’t know what is!
On the flip side, this is possibly good news for some of those with intersex conditions, given no diagnosis of gender dysphoria is needed and the nature, timing or consent as to surgery isn’t specified. I do not know if the Gender Recognition Panel was ever asked to consider such a case under the old fast-track rules, so I can’t guess if they’d grant such recognition but the law suggests they should – it states the panel “must grant the application” if they are happy the applicant has “undergone surgical treatment for the purpose of “modifying sexual characteristics”.
PS As a reminder, you can write to Baroness Stowell in support of ending the Spousal Veto. The Coalition for Equal Marriage have also produced this handy form you can use to register your views.
The Scottish parliament has just released it’s own “Equal” Marriage Bill. (PDF Link)
The nature of devolved legislative powers is that there is much they can’t fix, such as reintroduction of the fast-track Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) process. However, the things they could have fixed from the English and Welsh version… they haven’t.
Firstly, the spousal veto is still present, without time limit. (Schedule 2, paragraph 3 – starts on the bottom of page 38) In a nutshell, if you want gender recognition including employment law protection and you are married, you’d better hope you have a cooperative spouse. Otherwise, you’ll be forced to go through the cost of initiating an annulment yourself. That is, of course, assuming your spouse isn’t inclined to engage in delaying tactics over any divorce because they can make you wait a long, long time to get your legal rights if so.
Quite why the legal gender of the person you are married to is more important than if they are living as and perceived by the world as a particular gender, or if they have a particular genital configuration, has yet to be explained by anyone involved. For the avoidance of doubt, because many legislators didn’t know this, a spouse has no say in change of legal name and going “full time”, in starting hormone treatment or in surgery. There is also no other situation that partners might find just as objectionable, such as religious conversion or racking up huge debts, that require a special veto clause in legislation rather than using the generic marriage-broken-down-irretrievably clauses. Such “you must have your husband/partners consent” clauses were, rightly, removed from legislation a long time ago. GRCs are unique in having this reintroduced.
They have also made no move to restore marriages stolen under the old system.
On the plus side, it doesn’t look as if someone can annul their marriage just because their partner had a GRC from before they were married if they’re in Scotland. That’s something they have right historically, at least.
But it’s almost as if they just copied what Westminster did and were not paying attention.
Today was the third and final day of the House of Lords committee stage for the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. First of all, some background on the current state of the bill for trans folk – overall, it’s progressive because it removes the forced-divorce requirement of the current situation. Even if your spouse was 100% cooperative and happy to remain married, the lack of same-sex marriage in this country (And of opposite-sex civil partnerships, for those in civil partnerships) meant you had to divorce and get re-married/civil-partnered in order to obtain gender recognition.
Beyond that, it appears to have been the position of government to try to limit trans rights as much as possible.
A whole raft of possible improvements were suggested, many of which were raised by trans activists over the course of several meetings with civil servants. I’ve covered some of them here, although removal of gendered language (i.e. say “partner” instead of “husband/wife”), survivor pensions and reinstatement of the old fast-track GRC process were also discussed. (More on fast track later)
Several months on and things are not looking good.
The government has shot down almost all of the amendments, granting only survivor pensions during the passage of the bill through the commons. (Notably, the one suggestion that benefits not just cis people but cis wives specifically – it only has a beneficial effect for the wife of a trans woman)
This left trans activists in the unenviable position of deciding where to concentrate limited political capital, with the remaining items eventually being spousal veto and fast-track. Even then, the abolition of the spousal veto to gender recognition completely was not going to be possible – instead a watered down version (Amendments 46ZA through 46ZG) was produced which time-limited it to 6 months, after which a full gender recognition certificate could be applied for. (12 months if the partner started proceedings first)
With the veto in place, the entire financial and emotional burden for initiating annulment proceedings falls upon the transitioning partner, as if it is their fault for being trans. It also becomes possible for a particularly non-cooperative partner to delay or even stall proceedings totally for many years, possibly using someone’s legal rights as a bargaining chip to gain benefits or just out of malice. (This sort of behavior is all too common in acrimonious divorces, sadly – even to the extent of pre-emptively starting proceedings and abandoning them to prevent the other side from initiating divorce themselves and delaying things as much as possible)
Baronesses Barker and Gould proposed the amendment in the House of Lords today, with the relevant discussion starting from 3:41pm. (Hansard transcript also available.) There were some particularly good quotes from Baroness Gould: “No other area of law requires spousal consent for a change in the relationship…formal spousal consent is a new concept in law. Without this amendment, the government is saying to trans people that they are somehow second class citizens“. Baroness Butler-Sloss also spoke up in favor meaning the amendment had, significantly, support from LibDem, Labour and Crossbench peers.
The government response from Baroness Stowell was, essentially, “no, we’re not going to do this” with her response going so far as to suggest the decision to end a marriage because of gender recognition was one that was entirely the problem of the trans person. However, it was ill-prepared and they were clearly not expecting to be pushed on the issue. Eventually the amendment was withdrawn (This is normal practice, amendments do not generally get pushed to the vote, particularly at this stage) with the government committing to have more discussions and report back in writing.
Not a victory by any stretch of the imagination, particularly given that this was supposed to be a compromise amendment for the government to meet us half-way in the first place.
The one small glimmer of hope is that there may be government amendments at the next stage to re-introduce fast track: The mechanism by which someone who has transitioned for a long period (several years) to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate with reduced requirement for reports from doctors, many of whom may no longer be practicing. Despite this, there is much predictable anger on Twitter at the government’s point-blank refusal to consider any trans rights, even when compromises are proposed.
Finally, to clear up a couple of misconceptions I’ve seen elsewhere:
- The interim Gender Recognition Certificate-based procedure to dissolve the old marriage and re-contract a new one on the same day when you’re issued a doesn’t work in practice due to the way the paperwork is handled. (I think it’s only been successful once) Usually there is a delay of several weeks, especially if you’re trying to organise a ceremony around it. There would be all sorts of inheritance problems if one partner dies during this problem but thankfully I don’t believe this has ever happened.
- The ability for a spouse to divorce someone who had a GRC before they were married (Unless they can prove they told them about it somehow) isn’t introduced by this bill – it’s from the original Gender Recognition Act 2004. However, it’s something that was raised as part of this bill and the government refused to change. (For some reason, they consider existing “unreasonable behavior” divorces to be insufficient – trans folk need to be punished for their “deception”.
Dear The Right Revd and Right Honourable The Lord Carey of Clifton, FRSA FKC,
I noticed that you have published your entry into the Oppression Olympics on the front page of today’s Daily Mail. I’ve assessed your entry and unfortunately found it lacking. You will need to try much harder if you want to get on the medals table.
Firstly, “persecuted” groups don’t usually get their ex-leaders screeds published on the front pages, so that might have been a mistake. Also, the repeated references to “Lord” just highlight the automatic membership of parliament that you and your co-persecutees get, so perhaps you should have asked them to strip that out of the article too. Oh, and being a gendered title it also gives away that you’re male. Minus several oppression points.
At least there is no photo in the paper version, because the one in the online version gives away that you’re white. And I don’t think that stick is for walking either, so it appears you’re able-bodied.
Choice of other groups to go after is important too. Attacking the gays probably wasn’t great, perhaps you should have picked a less marginalised group instead? A bit tough I know, because you are a member of the majority religious group in this country.
Finally, I’ll admit to making assumptions here but as you’re married and an archbishop I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re straight. And probably not transgendered, either.
Sorry, what was the basis for your claims of persecution as a middle-class, white, able-bodied, straight, cis-gendered member of the religious majority with an automatic seat in parliament again?
(A bisexual trans woman of uncertain religious beliefs in a same-sex polyamourous relationship whose communities have much to gain from same-sex marriage, but still able-bodied, middle class and white and able to recognise she has a huge amount of privilege)
P.S. Luckily, I don’t think you speak for the majority of Christians. Or even the majority of members of the Anglican church. Pretty sure you’re not speaking for most of the ones I know, anyway.
A number of amendments for trans people have been submitted formally in parliament, but unless you’re a legal whiz with some spare time to hand it’s not immediately obvious what they are. So, here’s a quick guide to what the relevant ones do…
Amendment 4 – Prevent voiding of marriages with a trans person
At the moment, a spouse can have a marriage voided (As if it had never happened) by claiming they did not know that their partner had a gender recognition certificate at the time they married, and this amendment removes this. There is no similar provision covering, for example, religion or similar and creates a situation whereby a spouse who does know about their partner’s history later claims ignorance if their partner is not very publicly “out”.
Amendment 5 – Remove spousal veto of legal recognition of gender
Because a marriage would, under the existing system, need to be converted to or from a civil partnership on one partner transitioning, there is a requirement for an interim Gender Recognition Certificate to be issued and the existing partnership be annulled prior to full recognition of legal rights. This was done to prevent a spouse being forcibly re-entered into a new relationship (Civil partnership or Marriage) they didn’t want and could not get out of due to the one-year minimum term before divorce can be applied for in a new relationship.
This is no longer the case, but the bill did not reflect that fully. Instead, it allowed a partner to delay or potentially block someone getting full legal rights in their acquired gender by refusing to give consent, a situation that would also incur additional costs for the trans person by forcing them to use the interim GRC process.
The amendment levels the playing field by only issuing an interim GRC if both parties request it, rather than simply if the spouse refuses consent. (As it stands, it also causes an Interim GRC to be issued in the case of a civil partnership, because the current bill does not allow for mixed-sex civil partnerships)
It takes 2 years post-transition to get a GRC, so an unhappy spouse still has plenty of time to apply for divorce.
Amendment 6 is tidy-up related to amendment 5, removing clauses that are no longer relevant.
Amendment 7 – Restoration of lost marriages
This simply allows marriages that had to be annulled so that someone could get legal recognition to be reinstated as if they had never been broken. If you want to know more, Sarah wrote about this for the Huffington Post.
Amendment 8 – Reissue of marriage and birth certificates
The bill did not make reissue of marriage certificates explicit, but this amendment does. It allow allows birth certificates to be reissued, with consent of all concerned. (The other named parent if the child is under 16, otherwise the child themselves)
There is still more we’d like to get done (Fixing pensions issues and swapping gendered terms like husband/wife for gender-neutral and non-binary terms like partner) but time is limited! Hopefully they’ll get in too eventually.
Of course, tabling amendments doesn’t mean they will pass but it does mean we are well on the way.
I just had a very quick initial scan of the Government’s response to the Equal Marriage consultation. (PDF Link) Headline issues of particular interest to Bi and Trans folk are as follows:
Civil partnerships will be retained, but open to same-sex couples only. This is disappointing, as it’s effectively giving same-sex couples more rights than mixed-sex couples. There is a legal challenge in the works already to try to open this up to mixed-sex couples, and presumably that will now go ahead.
Civil Partnerships (CPs) can be converted into marriages, either for transition or just because a couple wishes to do so. This will be required for those transitioning but already in a CP, because mixed-sex CPs will not be allowed. Conversion due to transition will become part of the Gender Recognition process, but will require written consent of the spouse as well as the transitioning person. Once an interim Gender Recognition Certificate has been obtained, the choice is either to convert to marriage or go through the current system and annul the existing marriage.
The handling of paperwork on transition, e.g. would a replacement marriage certificate be issued still showing the initial marriage date, is still up for discussion.
In an announcement that I know will upset a great many people, marriages stolen under the old system of forced-divorce will not be reinstated.
Interestingly, 3% of respondents indirectly stated they were Trans and married, a surprisingly high proportion. Another 3% were identified as being spouses. In both cases, 79% of people said they would like to use the option to retain their existing marriage.
Opposite sex couples will continue to be able to annul their marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. This may be of particular interest to some non-op Trans folk as well as other groups, such as those with disabilities where consummation is physically impossible and both people knew it when they got married.
And finally, the one you’ll no doubt read in the mainstream sources: Religious (Not just civil, as I’d initially thought from earlier statements) marriage in religious premises will be allowed as long as both the minister and the wider church agree to it.
Here’s the document that’s creating the fuss. (PDF Link) Quoting from “Key Findings” on page page 28: (The Daily Mail quoted this bit too)
…the majority of British people now accept the concept of same-sex couples as being
‘rarely wrong’ or ‘not wrong at all’…
That’s somewhat different from the Daily Mail headline, isn’t it? Well, they cherry-picked one particular statistic from the document for their headline, which was a separate 2006 EU study. If we look at answers to more recent studies, in 2007 about 48-49% of people thought same-sex relationships were “Rarely” or “Not at all” wrong, with about 37% thinking it was “Mostly” or “Always” wrong. (The remainder expressed no overall opinion – I’m ignoring the 2006 drop in those that think it’s wrong as a blip)
Notably, it’s also increasing in favour at a rate of nearly 2% per year. Remember that, it’s important.
So it’s clear that the public are in favour of same-sex couples, but marriage is a little different.
Their anti-marriage headline is based on five-year-old EU data and only quotes gives figures for the number of people who approve, without giving figures for the number of people giving a neutral (“Don’t know”) answer, because they are comparing attitudes across Europe. So, it’s off to the original source data. (PDF Link – 10MB)
Page 43 is the relevant section, with an EU-wide “Don’t know” rate is 7%. This would mean that if 46% agree that it’s OK, about 47% are against – it’s a wafer thin margin. Given only 100 people were interviewed, that’s well within any statistical margin of error.
Updated:It’s been pointed out by a Pink Paper commenter, that the full figures are on page 80 of this document. The UK figures are that 46% agree, 9% don’t know and 45% disagree with equal marriage. There were also 1,308 interviewees, so this falls within the margin of error for the survey. Update ends
And that was 5 years ago.
And attitudes have shifted in favour.
I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that the public is probably, by now, in support of equal marriage overall. It’s certainly wrong to conclude that they’re against it, based on the sources given.