Union civile full of good intent, but wrong answer

IT IS nearly a decade since the States agreed that it should investigate a way of legally recognising same-sex relationships.

It is a piece of work that was given precious little attention, perhaps filed away in the 'too difficult to handle' drawer.

But finally, the Policy Council has gone public with its preferred option.

It is full of the right intentions, and for Guernsey at least is somewhat progressive, but in what must be an attempt to avoid conflict with the Church of England, which still holds a powerful sway on marriage law in Guernsey, the ministers at the helm have come up short of the right answer.

The Policy Council has tied its hands declaring that marriage is a religious word and therefore a no-go area.

Instead it backs letting any couple enter into a somewhat grandly-titled 'union civile' to secure the rights currently associated with marriage.

They see this as simplicity, but it introduces a different type of discrimination.

At the moment heterosexual couples can be married in a civil service – that option now goes.

So what is wrong with the civil marriage option for same-sex couples with an opt-out for the churches as has happened in other nearby jurisdictions?

Indeed, take the example of Quebec, where it took just a few years from introducing civil unions to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The advantage is that it is something that will be easily recognised in other countries, and more importantly society in general. It is more than semantics to many.

For a Guernsey couple moving abroad, imagine the conversation as they try to explain that no, we're not married, we're union civiled, it's, uhm, the same thing though, honest.

There would also be more important legal impacts of this and given that it has taken the best part of a decade to get this far, it is not good enough for the Policy Council to be answering this international recognition element with a shrug.

Its consultation states: 'marriage is a word that is recognised in other countries and international recognition of any future arrangements for Guernsey is being worked on'.

Just why is the States making some faux intellectual nod to French heritage that few outside these shores will understand?

Its consultation contains no background on what has happened elsewhere or any real driver for where its marriage stance has come from.

There is also precious little information on what rights will come with a union civile and how these would differ to marriage, in other jurisdictions there are differences, which either implies that the proposal is not as far developed as it should be after a decade, or ministers do not believe it is important to consult on this aspect with the public.

One of the starting points of its journey is spot on.

The Policy Council says it wants to encourage clear separation between the state and religion – it is just the jump it then makes to marriage being a purely religious term that is wrong.

Indeed, the simple fact is that Guernsey has recognised marriage is not the sole preserve of the church by legislating for civil ceremonies, it is a cultural norm so why upset that?

Now it would be fun to test just how far ministers want to take this notion of separation.

Because the States has precious few credentials.

It has backed forcing people to pay rates for the upkeep of the parish churches.

Rectors still retain a seat in the States of Election to vote on who becomes a Jurat.

The Lord 's Prayer is still read at the start of every States meeting.

The union civile concept is trying to be too cute and in doing so is not bold enough.

At least there is consultation, so the public has the chance to push for a more progressive approach by keeping the marriage option open. Already 1,000 people have responded, so the engagement is there.

It is absolutely right that all couples should be in a position where their relationship can be legally recognised by the state.

Currently marriage brings rights, responsibilities and benefits such as next of kin status, joint tax filing, inheritance, pensions, it impacts on the status of children and adoption and on residency.

To deny those to people because of their sexual orientation is plainly unjust – just as it would be to deny them because of their religious beliefs or the type of car they drove.

In its attempt to make things equal, the Policy Council has chosen to impose a new regime on everyone instead of simply making the current regime meet this goal.

Marriage is a term that is recognised around the globe and its meaning has evolved as society has done so.

Ministers have failed to recognise that evolution, or worse, has decided that the power of the CoE is such that to make a bid for same-sex marriage would fail.

This worrying CoE influence on the law has been teased out slowly since the consultation, which is itself silent on the issue.

'We are not a sovereign state and we must accommodate the CofE,' Chief Minister Jonathan Le Tocq has said.

So how does that tie up with the separation of state and religion?

Of course it doesn't.

Again, this is the Policy Council in anti-conflict with the Church mode, but if that is the case it should be open and honest about the difficulties it foresees and see whether the public is willing to back it to make a challenge to this influence.

England has come up with parallel laws, is there something in the Guernsey relationship that means it can't and if so, is that really acceptable?