PRESS RELEASE: "Mr Straw, stop passing the buck"

Transsexual leaders condemn High Court marriage ruling and call for legislation

Leaders of Press for Change, the UK’s transsexual rights campaign, today condemned the decision of the High Court not to recognise the marriage of transsexual woman Elizabeth Bellinger.

This morning’s ruling by Mr Justice Johnson maintained that Elizabeth’s 20-year marriage to her husband Michael was not legally valid.  In effect, the judge has torn apart a happy and well functioning family.

Elizabeth and Michael Bellinger have always known who Elizabeth was and is.  She was and is a wife to Michael, despite Justice Johnson’s ruling.  However, Johnson has made sure that Elizabeth cannot benefit from Michael’s pension if he should die, a pension for which he has worked hard to ensure that his family never becomes a burden to the state.  Johnson has ensured that this popular local woman has overnight been legally turned into a man, labelling her marriage to Michael as a gay relationship.

Press for Change Vice-President, Dr Stephen Whittle, a law lecturer who was refused recognition as the father of his family’s four children, said today:

“A court which tears apart a successful family is hardly a court of justice.  A society which allows this to happen is hardly a just society.  I hope that Mrs Bellinger and her husband will appeal this tragic judgment.

“The government is evading its responsibilities.  Mrs Bellinger’s family should not have to fight in the courts for basic civil rights.  It is scandalous that the government continues to oppose her claim.  We call on the government not to contest any appeal which Mrs Bellinger makes.”

It is more than six months since the government received the report of its own working group on the status of transsexual people.  The report shows how transexual people could be granted full civil rights.

Stephen Whittle added:

“Thirty years after our civil rights were taken from us, the UK’s estimated 2,400 transsexual people should not have to pin their hopes on obscure points of interpretation in the courts.  The Home Secretary should now move promptly to place before parliament legislation which would grant us full legal recognition.”

“The legislation required is not complex.  Recognising the status of transsexual people would disadvantage no-one: nearly every other European country has managed it.  If this government really believes in human rights, it would stop hoping that the courts will solve the problem.

“Mr Straw, stop passing the buck: it’s time for you to act.”

Briefing on the Bellinger case

Justice Johnson’s decision is in direct contrast to the High Court decision 3 weeks ago in W v W, in which Justice Charles held that the marriage of a transsexual woman was valid, and that her husband could not obtain an annulment but would instead have to seek a divorce.

What is the difference between W and Elizabeth? None that is known.  Both women had micro-penises at birth.  But this begs the question: how small is too small, how big is too big.  Is this how we are to judge what is a marriage in the future - the bigger the penis, the more valid the marriage! The difference lies in the context; W was in a very unhappy marriage and her husband was seeking to avoid being responsible for her.  Yet, Michael who has always sought to care for Elizabeth has had his status as a husband ripped from him.  When his wife dies he is now going to have to bury Elizabeth as if she was a man, or arrange the funeral of what is in law ’a stranger to him’.

Elizabeth’s case and that of W both highlight the discrimination and threats to privacy endured by trans people when they have taken steps to live and present themselves according to their innate gender identity rather than in the sex role assigned to them at birth on a cursory examination of their genitals.

Background information

The UK remains one of only four out of 40 countries in the Council of Europe which fails to provide full legal recognition in their new gender for transsexual people: the others are Albania, Andorra, and Ireland.  This failure causes countless problems for transsexual people in their everyday lives.

Despite being issued with corrected passports and driving licenses reflecting their true gender, transsexual people remain legally in the gender assigned to them at birth.  Apart from being unable to conduct a valid marriage, their tax and social security records retain the original gender, and insurance policies may be invalidated if they do not declare their legal status.  If convicted of a crime, they risk being sent to a prison for the opposite sex, and any situation requiring the production of a birth certificate guarantees a breach of personal privacy.

The government insists that a birth certificate is not an identity document, yet civil service and public sector employers insist that it accompanies job applications.  Ministers have confirmed to parliament that most government departments use the birth certificate as an identity document.

In April 1999, Home Secretary Jack Straw established an inter-departmental working group “To consider, with particular reference to birth certificates, the need for appropriate legal measures to address the problems experienced by transsexuals, having due regard to scientific and societal developments, and measures undertaken in other countries to deal with this issue.” The working group’s report was received by ministers at Easter 2000, and published in July.  It recognises that we face serious legal difficulties, and concludes that full legal recognition is required.

However, the government has not yet indicated any intention to act on this report.

Contacts and information