Transsexual bid denied

[Anonymous]

Quote:

the court knocked her back on the grounds she was married. It doesn’t say whether she’s still married or had been married, but this is alarming news for those of us seeking eventually to have a normal identity.

Hi Zenda

Although I do not know the specifics of the case you quote, I do know that each state in the legislation that recognizes change of sex details on birth certificates specifically states that applicants must be divorced or have never been married in order to have the application considered. I assume then that the woman in question would have been still married.

Under the Marriage act (a federal act) it defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. This is the justification the current governement is using to keep same sex marriages illegal.

The argument for divorce before the sex can be changed on the bc goes along the lines that to allow a person to change sex whilst still married would go against the federal marriage act.HOWEVER the marriage act only states what sex the persons should be AT THE TIME of marriage and there is no provision that states any or both of the people involved in the marriage must remain that sex. It was worth a challenge in the court and could have led the way to same sex marriages being legalized. Sadly it appears we will have to wait for another day!

Cathii

[Anonymous]

I’d have to see the application, affidavits, transcript and Judgement to knoe what it was about and how it was being pursued.

However, the Federal Court is not the appropriate jurisdiction to challenge the State on a Birth Certificate.

The Federal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the State. It can hear a complaint against the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961, however it seems that the issue isn’t that the partners are married. Therefore there is no claim against the Marriage Act or in the Commonwealth Jurisdiction.

Seems the really issue is the State’s legislation, and that needs to be tested in the Supreme Court of that state, not the Federal Court. The issue is changing the gender on a birth certificate, well the Marraige Act has nothing to do with that and the Births Registrations laws in each state have nothing to do with the Marriage Act.

But again, I’d have to see the relevant materials to really make an informed view. Based on what I can see, the proceeding was instigated in the wrong jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

In her 1974 (rev 1986) book ‘Conundrum’, Jan Morris tells how on the cusp of her SRS at Charing Cross Hospital in England she was refused surgery because she was, at the time, still married. So the issue of creating a same sex marraige has been around for a while, for sure.
It wasn’t at all clear in The Age story last week whether AB was still married or not. As Ella said, it would be useful to see read the actual judgement. My point really, I suppose, was that if she was no longer actually married, why did a State issue go against her.
By the way, Jan Morris went to Casablanca for her surgery and sorted out her marrital issues later – at a time of her choosing.

All love, Zenda

‘One is not born a woman, one becomes one’ Simone de Beauvoir