Another example of hierarchies of rights. Ad astra per aspera
I wonder if anyone has tried to argue this as a breach of the right to get married, for gay people?
Yes, they have
We are a British same-sex couple who legally married in Canada in 2003. For When the Civil Partnership Act became law (December 2005), we were told our marriage was now deemed a civil partnership. A different-sex couple married in Canada would automatically have had their marriage recognised as a marriage in the UK. With the support of the human rights organization Liberty, we sought a declaration of the validity of our marriage as a marriage in the UK. We lost. The judge agreed that we are treated differently from a heterosexual couple, and that this constitutes discrimination. But he said that this discrimination is justified in order to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, primarily to produce children. Drawing on British and European case law, he also ruled that a same-sex couple does not constitute 'a family'.
With the support of the human rights organization Liberty, we sought a declaration of the validity of our marriage as a marriage in the UK. We lost.
The judge agreed that we are treated differently from a heterosexual couple, and that this constitutes discrimination. But he said that this discrimination is justified in order to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, primarily to produce children. Drawing on British and European case law, he also ruled that a same-sex couple does not constitute 'a family'.
More religionist bollocks to justify discrimination from a Labour Party in thrall to superstitious hatreds keep to the Fen Causeway
Can't be bothered.
But, without it, can I get married to a woman ? keep to the Fen Causeway
If you don't mind me asking do you have legal status as a woman or do you need to apply for these documents in order to get that? Ad astra per aspera
The gender recognition certificate was brought in for that purpose but the legislation specifically states that it is not to be used as an identification certificate (despite which, the LGBT police officer demanded one from TGs who wanted to use the female loo at Pride). Course I can't retire at 60 whatever I do cos that would cost HM Govt money. keep to the Fen Causeway
Would there be a risk of the marriage being revoked at a later stage if your gender becomes officially recognised through whatever process?
No, because they oblige you to have a divorce from any official partnership before you go through. It was never an issue for me as I didn't have a partnership, but a lot of my official pre-op recognition was dependent on my being single. keep to the Fen Causeway
Makes one want to go to sleep and not wake up until the 22nd century.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
Plus a lot of this comes from custom and practice when lesbian relationships weren't officially recognised. Also in the UK the medical profession make you jump through a lot of stupid hoops to prove to them you're serious and worth wasting money on.
Plus there's a whole heap of expectations from psychologists that the transgendered should conform to stereotypical feminine behaviours, one of which must involve a desire to play happy families with men. Being sexually orientated towards women definitely counts against you and so being married or wanting to continue a relationship with a woman would be the end of your ambitions to change gender.
And then bigot wimminists use conforming to those very stereotypes against us. Gah, ya can't win !!
Again, I'm glad I didn't have to put up with any of that crap, but those who did remain angry even decades later. The psychiatrist who started the gender re-assignment clinic was such a monster that, 25 years after his death, his resting place apparently still smells of wee from those who've pissed on his grave. keep to the Fen Causeway
Paradoxically, it's the more conservative states that tend to allow such same-sex unions. Courts in Texas and Kansas, for example, have ruled that no operation can alter a person's sex in the eyes of the law. In the 1999 Texas decision, a state appeals court invalidated the marriage between a deceased man and his male-to-female transsexual widow, after the widow tried to sue her husband's employer for wrongful death. Gender, the court concluded, is "fixed by our Creator at birth." The unintended consequence of that decision, however, is that a transsexual could marry someone of the same gender in Texas. After all, if a male-to-female transsexual is legally a male in the state, regardless of her surgery and appearance, then she is free to marry another female. In fact, at least two couples have taken advantage of this Texan loophole since the ruling. A 2002 Kansas decision, In re Gardiner, created this same loophole, although it's unclear whether any couples have made use of it yet.
The unintended consequence of that decision, however, is that a transsexual could marry someone of the same gender in Texas. After all, if a male-to-female transsexual is legally a male in the state, regardless of her surgery and appearance, then she is free to marry another female. In fact, at least two couples have taken advantage of this Texan loophole since the ruling. A 2002 Kansas decision, In re Gardiner, created this same loophole, although it's unclear whether any couples have made use of it yet.
