?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Same Sex Marriage Bill – Transgender Implications - Sarah, The Bringer of Tea
25th January, 2013
04:29 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Same Sex Marriage Bill – Transgender Implications

Originally published at Sarah Brown's Blog. You can comment here or there.

The government has published its long-awaited proposals for same sex marriage. This is a technical blog post, looking at what the implcations for trans people are:

I have a non-binary identity

The government’s equal marriage consultation set the tone by starting off talking about “marriage regardless of gender”. This was hopeful in that it suggested that trans issues were being given equal consideration to the comparatively more straightforward issue of same sex marriage in a cisnormative situation.

Note however that this bill is called the “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill”. This seems like a retrograde step. We’re back to talking about “same sex” and “opposite sex” rather than “regardless of gender”. Indeed, it goes on, when talkming about how “marriage” is to be interpreted in existing legislation:

A reference to marriage is to be read as including a reference to marriage of a same sex couple

Same goes for cohabiting people who aren’t married – extension is to be granted to same sex couples.

Furthermore:

(a) “husband” includes a man who is married to another man;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman

This is pretty thin for non-binary people. If you’re neither a man nor a woman, or your marriage can’t be described as either “opposite sex” or “same sex”, then you’re not included in any of this. Where the consultation simply avoided this “opposite sex/same sex/man/woman” distinction entirely with “marriage regardless of gender”, what we now have in the bill is “marriage for the genders of male and female”.

If that’s not you and you want to get married, you’ll likely have to lie about who you are.

I want a civil partnership

Nothing has changed – you and your partner have to be the “same sex”, even if that’s a completely nonsensical way to describe your relationship. If the concept of “same sex” doesn’t mean anything in your relationship, you’ll likely have to lie if you want one of these.

I’m in a civil partnership and I’m transitioning

If you are in one of these and want a Gender Recognition Certificate, you have a few options:

  • Convert your civil partnership to a marriage before having anything to do with the Gender Recognition Panel.

  • Get an Interim Gender Recognition Certificate and annul your civil partnership. This is the same as at present and there are no proposals to end this barbaric practice.
  • Have your civil partner transition to the same binary gender as you (if one or both of you aren’t binary, lie) and apply for a GRC at the same time. The highly competent and efficient civil servants who administer all this stuff will make sure this works smoothly (warning: sarcasm may apply).
  • Don’t get a gender recognition certificate. This is what lots of people in this situation (both in civil partnerships and marriages) already do, because they regard their relationship as more important than legal recognition as their proper gender. I wish I hadn’t found out I was one of these people until too late.

If you want to transition into an “opposite sex relationship” in the eyes of the state and retain your civil partnership, you can’t. If you have lots of money you may want to consider speaking to a human rights lawyer at this point.

I’m already married and I want to stay married and I want a Gender Recognition Certificate

Congratulations. You fall into the category of “trans people for whom this is actually useful”. You can have one. Your existing relationship will continue to be recognised. It’s not clear if you can get your name fixed on a reissued marriage certificate the way you can on your birth certificate; the bill doesn’t say.

I was married, I had my marriage annulled, I’m now in a civil partnership, can I have my marriage back?

I’m in this situation. The answer is no, you can’t. It stinks, doesn’t it? The government screwed us over and it’s not really interested in sorting that out. It’s not that the bill prohibits restoration of our relationships per-se; it just completely ignores the issue. It’s almost as if they’re really embarrassed about what they did to us and hope that by not mentioning it, it’ll just go away.

Oh, right…

I’m married, my relationship has turned acrimonious. We have a house/kids/shared stamp collection [delete as applicable], it’s all really toxic, does this affect my rights under this bill?

I have some bad news for you. You might want to sit down.

The stuff about marriage being no impediment to getting a Gender Recognition Certificate any more … that’s not entirely true.

When you apply for a GRC, if you’re married, you need your spouse to consent in writing to you getting a GRC.

That’s right – this person who probably has a restraining order against you, and is threatening to never let you see your children again, and has told all your mutual friends that you’re dead, or have been kidnapped by penguins, or anything to escape the shame of being married to one of them, this person has a veto over your legal gender.

It’s only a temporary veto. If they don’t sign the form and you apply for a GRC, you get an Interim Gender Recognition Certificate. You then have to go through the annulment process as before. Your partner can stall this for a bit by not responding to court letters and hiring solicitors and stuff. Basically, you have to go through the pain of an acrimonious divorce before you can have a Gender Recognition Certificate, even if you’ve been separated for years, probably on account of the stress your poor ex partner will have to go through if they realise that you have a piece of paper in your desk drawer which makes them officially gay.

A note on consummation

It’s not clear what this means for trans people who don’t have the expected genital configuration. If the government don’t tighten this up, expect another hilarious court case along the lines of Corbett v Corbett real soon now.

Conclusion

If the government were to publish a bill that provided for marriage for same sex couples, and then noticed that they got the bare minimal bit of Gender Recognition Act reform thrown in for free, but didn’t decide to actually go out of their way to do a single damned thing for trans people, it would would look exactly like this one.

Shame really – it showed so much promise. We’ve been thrown under the bus again, but it’s what we’re used to, right?

I’d better stop, as I seem to be getting a bit cross.

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:friend_of_tofu
Date:25th January, 2013 06:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh Christ, I want to boil my eyes. WHY ARE THEY FUCKING THIS UP SO BADLY?? What is so hard about, "any 2 competent adults can get married; any 2 people already in a CP may choose to convert this to marriage."

WHY IS THIS SO CRAP???
From:snakey
Date:25th January, 2013 06:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ugh, I feel queasy. :( And I'm in the best-affected group - but the idea of getting my wife to write me a frickin' letter of permission to be recognised as my actual gender literally makes me feel like puking.
[User Picture]
From:darkfox_uscm
Date:25th January, 2013 07:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's a horrible shame that I feel exactly the sentiment you forsaw we should be feeling right now... A shrug of the shoulders and 'used to this by now'. At least I understand just how tragic me feeling this way actually is. :(
Sorry to everyone who is disappointed by this. x
[User Picture]
From:darkfox_uscm
Date:25th January, 2013 07:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, and thank you for the heads-up Sarah. x
[User Picture]
From:sion_a
Date:29th January, 2013 10:12 am (UTC)

I have a non-binary identity

(Link)
"you’ll likely have to lie about who you are"

But you already have anyway. On your driving licence, passport and every other piece of identification, which all require binary gendering. And you need to present proof of identity to the registrar for your marriage licence, so they're just going to copy across whatever you've presented them with anyway. So, "they" would probably argue, the participants in a marriage have to be men or women, so why allow for anything else? It's a bit of a Catch 22 as far as getting official non-binary recognition: if it's not allowed for marriage, then allowing it elsewhere excludes you from getting married; but since it's not allowed elsewhere there's no case for allowing it in marriage.

I don't even know how to start fighting this one. I think all my queer activism energy got burned up in the 90s.
Powered by LiveJournal.com