The States' building
THE States have overwhelmingly backed proposals for civil partnerships between gay couples.
Members voted 48 to one in favour of the proposal to extend marriage benefits to long-term gay couples who enter civil partnerships, with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand the only objector.
Formal proposals will come back to the States at some point next year after yesterday’s in-principle vote, but no date has been set for the introduction of the new arrangements.
Members have agreed that civil partnerships should extend the same tax, inheritance, pension, and property rights to gay couples as married couples currently get, and that they should also get the same rights to make medical decisions if their partners are seriously ill and unable to make decisions for themselves.
Article posted on 21st October, 2009 - 2.58pm
56 Article Comments
Finally something i agree that the states have got right!!! I have lots of Gay and Lesbian friends and many of them have been together for years!! This is a fantastic step in the right direction!
Report abuse
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! 21st Century here we come!
Report abuse
My concern here is that only those comments in favour of this action will be published on this forum. Whilst clearly this is a divisive issue and strong views will be expressed, it should be reported in an unbiased fashion.
Please publish all comments except of course those containing profanity, so far I see only the comments of those in favour.
Report abuse
How times change. I was amazed to hear Sen Le Main talk so positively regarding equal rights legislation for same sex couples, considering his response to whether he would support this legislation when asked in 2005:
“…no [it] makes a mockery of my Roman Catholic beliefs but apart from that i am probably a little old fashioned…”
and on a second occasion
“…I also will not be supporting this change of law due to my Roman Catholic upbringing etc…”
I particularly like the vagueness of ‘etc.’ when when justifying inequality.
Even though it’s a u-turn to what he said while campaigning for election, I’m glad to see his change of heart.
Report abuse
This is the first decent decision made for the greater good, why cant they just listen to publice opinion more often – however I do feel they are trying to copy UK legislation even when other uk legislation and policies are far from sensible and look sure to fail!
This is a good move for Jersey, being open minded and not hiding behind religious beliefs
Report abuse
…at the end of the day what does it matter what the States think?…all decent law abiding, thinking and caring individuals gave them up as lost many moons ago. For once however, in the face of local, national and international opinion they’ve bowed to pressure if only to save face. Now there’s a thing!
Report abuse
If this becomes law in Jersey does it mean that ministers will be forced to marry same sex couples in civil ceromonies. At present many Anglican priests are also registrars and carry out this service. If forced to marry same sex couples I can see a mass resignation of ministers who will refuse to act in contradiction to their faith.
It’s not just people of faith who object to this, many ordinary people are appalled by this news. Ironic isn’t it, there was a time when it was a criminal offence punishable by a term of inprisonment to be an acting homosexual, now it’s state sanctioned.
Report abuse
The States can make a decision should have been the headline. Whilst this of course is good news for those it affects, isn’t it somewhat of an irony that a decision on something that has been regarded as highly devise historically can now achieve virtually unanimous support, yet, key issues that affect all the population remain dangerously undecided?
Report abuse
Voice of Decency, what makes you believe anyone will be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony simply because it is permissible by law? There is also strong support for equal rights within the Church for gay couples.
It’s easy to see how this move is in keeping with the self determination we all enjoy in a democratic society. Homosexual marriage is no more sanctioned by the state because it is allowed than marriage between two people of different genders.
I also doubt very much you would want to live in one of the societies today where homosexuality is forbidden – you’d be surprised how often this goes in hand with arbitrary executions, non democratic governments and theistic mania. Be grateful you live in the 21st Century! NJ.
Report abuse
Seeing that Jersey has become so “liberalised” in its attitudes, perhaps we could have some gentlemans clubs for those of us who in old fashioned terms like to “ogle” at women dancing round a pole.
“Surely” in an age when men can marry men the island can hardly justify on moralist grounds the none inclusion of a Spearmint Rhino type venue for those chaps with a more traditional type of taste.
Lets have a vote on that!
Report abuse
@ Voice of Decency #7
“…If this becomes law in Jersey does it mean that ministers will be forced to marry same sex couples in civil ceromonies…”
No.
“…It’s not just people of faith who object to this…”
Not all people of faith have a problem with equality, just those that are bigoted; same’s true of atheists, some of them are intolerant too (although generally I find atheists naturally inclined to think for themselves, which helps in understanding, which helps with tolerance)
Report abuse
If being homosexual is unavoidable as “it in the genes”
Then natural selection should have weeded homosexuals out to extinction long ago.
There again, if its a lifestyle choice ?
Report abuse
It cannot be fair that two same sex people who share a life and a house can then have no rights,ie: if a partner dies the next of kin hitherto could kick the person out of their home..that is not supportable in my view.there have been cases where the partner has nursed the other one through aids etc only to find themselves homeless as a relative with an axe to grind and pockets to fill swooped on the immovables.which is not a sexual issue,but a humanitarian one..
Report abuse
If there was a gene for homosexuality it could remain in the population for millions of years.
Quite a few homosexuals and heterosexuals are not exclusively oriented towards just the same or the opposite sex and this would ensure that the gene was propagated.
Secondly the gene may work differently between men and women. A gene for greater than average height could be an advantage for a man as most women seem to prefer a partner that is taller than them but a woman who stands head and shoulders above her peers and most men might find a mate harder to attract!
Suppose a gene for male homosexuality also made women that carried it more empathic and feminine. Their brothers would be gay and not father any children but they would be having babies with the homosexual gene.
There are plenty of real examples of this eg female carriers of one copy of the recessive red green colour blindness gene do not suffer any disadvantage despite the fact that they pass it on to half of their sons who are disadvantaged.
The gene for sickle cell anemia confers some protection against malaria so human populations that have faced malaria for generations have higher than average levels of people with this condition.
Report abuse
Voice of Decency seems to be anything but! People who use faith to proliferate such hatred should be ashamed of themselves and are anything but Christian!
I would like to know what other laws of Leviticus that voice of decency would support. I certainly hope this person never wears clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) or that they never cut their hair or shave (Leviticus 19:27). I hope they also stand firm in their belief of forbiding the blind and the lame from worshiping at the alter of God (Leviticus 21:17-18). There would also be great demand for public executions for just about every other misdemeanour such as children cursing their parents (Leviticus 20:9). That would make an interesting test case for a parent beating their child to death in a supermarket aisle for throwing a tantrum which I’m sure voice of decency would love to defend.
The fact is that the old testiment is a violent and vengeful book written in a different time. Jesus spoke out in a very different tone pf tolerance and understanding saying all can share God’s love. He upset the “religious right wing” of his day and ended up on the cross because of it.
I congratulate the States on their overwhelming support to this and am glad that people like voice of decency are thankfully very much a dying breed.
From a gay Christian man who is married to a fabulous husband.
Report abuse
@ PJG #12
“…There again, if its a lifestyle choice?…”
Are you saying that it’s okay to make something harmless illegal because it’s a lifestyle choice?
Would you make drinking alcohol illegal because it’s just a lifestyle choice?
Would you ban cigarettes because they’re just a lifestyle choice?
What about the lifestyle choice of those that choose religion? Criminals? (at least they’d be able to escape conviction with a plea of insanity!)
Report abuse
Gay rights, no problem. However, how much is the legal work going to cost? Our spendthrift government have been on a spending spree for the past 20 years and this is probably another thing that is nice to have but we cannot afford.
Report abuse
@ Overpopulated #17
As I understand it, if the States were to pass a law that specifically contradicted an existing law, the newer law would take precedent.
If that’s right then it should be an incredibly cheap law to introduce by comparison to others; it only need say that from X date all Jersey laws shall disregard any difference between genders.
In the future amendments can be made to laws as and when they are reviewed.
Report abuse
This development is long overdue. There are many decent homosexual couples who have been living together (men or women) for years who at last will be able to enjoy the same human rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
As a strong believer and lay preacher I can only say – “God bless them!”
And He will too!
Report abuse
J Lamborrari @4: Do you mean Le Main or Le Sueur?
Report abuse
@ Mac #20
Those are quotes from Sen. Terry Le Main(although the first was during the election campaign when he may still have been Dep.??)
Report abuse
“…I can only say – “God bless them!”
And He will too!”
Of course He will. He needs congregations now more than ever.
Report abuse
This whole thing is a disgrace.
We should have passed this legislation a decade ago and become a prime destination for civil partnership ceremonies. Instead we drag our heels like this is a complex issue. We’ve done exactly the same with the casino.
If Jersey is to survive in the 21st century it has to be ahead of the game rather than wrestling with some 19th century Methodist morality that means nothing to 99% of the population.
Report abuse
Ahh, Voice of decencey.
Harking back to the good old days days when homosexuality was a crime.
Slavery used to be state sanctioned, as did sending small boys up chimneys and not letting women vote. This does not actually make them good things that were morally right.
Criminalising a persons sexual orientation was never a great idea and our society has come to accept that. We’ve moved on. I suggest you jog on to catch up with us!
Report abuse
In the bible its Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve ok
Report abuse
@ mick #25
Adam & Eve
Gistav & Tadzio
David & Giovanni
Lindsay & Samantha
Which is the odd one out of these couples?
Report abuse
Hmmm, whats next? Legal obligation is one thing but it shouldnt be compared to marriage which is, and always should be, between a MAN and a WOMAN. breeding is paramount in nature and anything against that one principal must be unnatural, fact. Homosexuality is a disorder and shouldn’t be rewarded with recognition as some sort of normality like any other perverse diversity from normal human behaviour…amen..
Report abuse
j Lamborrari 26.
I KNOW! I KNOW!
The odd one out of these couples is….
Lindsay and Samantha!
Because all the others are characters from books!
- Gustav and Tadzio are characters from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice;
- Giovanni and David are characters from James Baldwin’s novel Giovanni’s Room;
- Adam and Eve are characters from the Book of Genesis of the Bible.
Did I get it right?
Is there a prize for winning?
mad foetus 23.
I agree with you…just one thing though…those with 19th century Methodist morality have every right to stick to their views, no matter what the larger part of the population believe or don’t believe in.
Report abuse
Love the old “Adam and Eve” argument. Well, if you really love the Old Testament so much then you’ll know that Adam and Eve only bore 2 sons. So where did all the grandchildren come from? Hmmm, good old Biblical incest! So a bit of mother and son loving is okay but being gay isn’t?
As for Monkey Harris’s comment, which I do actually find abusive, I think perhaps he should direct himself to the countless articles by medical professionals (who I’m guessing have more information and research to hand than he does) which would argue that homosexuality occurs naturally in many more species than just humans and cetainly is not a “disorder”.
Report abuse
@ Born Warrior #28
Correct; Lindsay & Samantha, the Lesbian couple, are the odd one, out as they are not from works of fiction.
No prize, sorry.
Report abuse
#27 Monkey Harris: ‘breeding is paramount in nature and anything against that one principal must be unnatural, fact’
Why is something morally acceptable because it is ‘natural’ (whatever that means) and something that is ‘unnatural’ morally unacceptable?
Report abuse
If we have to discuss genetics can we please realise that it is not just ONE gene. As is the case with much of our makeup, there will be a number of genes involved in determining our sexuality, some of which have already been identified.
I’m all for every law-abiding person in the world having the same legal rights, be they practising heterosexual, homosexual or single. Stating your next of kin can be done easily by getting married or by having a civil partnership, however, we ALL have a right to stipulate who we wish to be our next of kin, the person that inherits and that makes decisions for us should we become incapable.
Anyway, the sooner everyone in society has equal rights the sooner we can stop having to pretend that certain really irritating ‘celebrities’ are interesting and hilarious (for fear of being called a ‘bigot’) Roll on the day that I can happily announce that John Barrowman is extremely annoying
Report abuse
#13 Unfortunately this can often be the case with siblings that live together or even just very close friends. There is a need for all of us to make clear who exactly we wish to be our next of kin and not expect the Government to be mindreaders.
Every individual should have to specify a next of kin in a way that is legally binding.
Report abuse
@ Leah Holmes #33
“…Every individual should have to specify a next of kin in a way that is legally binding…”
I hope you mean that every individual should have the option to specify a person as their next of kin; opting out of the default as now recognised.
Would you allow a married person the option of specifying somebody other than their partner?
Report abuse
#34, you’re right, I was meaning for those who are not married or in a civil partnership (since this already specifies your next of kin).
Report abuse
J Lamborrari #16
surely the results of a lifestyle choice must be viewed as less important, human rights speaking, than one thrust upon one by their genes ?
Or are you just being contrary ?
Report abuse
“If this becomes law in Jersey does it mean that ministers will be forced to marry same sex couples in civil ceromonies.”
No, of course they will not be “forced” to do anything of the sort.
In the UK, civil partnerships are solemnised by the local Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths.
Civil Partnership is just that: a “civil” partnership.
Report abuse
I wonder if Monkey Harris also believes that overpopulation is the world’s biggest issue to tackle, the en vogue way of not having to say anything about climate change, which he surely denies too?
With the fascists on the rise in the UK and some EU members, these domestic extremists will be ready recruits.
Love, not scripture. Acceptance, not prejudice.
Report abuse
J Lamborria #26 & 30
Excellent posts. Good work!
Report abuse
@ PJG #36
At #16 I was trying to make the point that *IF* homosexuality was a choice then why would that be any good reason to make it illegal, compared to other lifestyle choices that actually have harmful side effects.
I absolutely agree that human rights in relation to your genetics should carry greater weight than those of your lifestyle choices… but where those lifestyle choices (or genetics) effect nobody else then they shouldn’t be treated any more negatively than another persons choices/genes. Does that make sense?
IMO any law that restricts what I do to myself(or to a consenting adult) without effecting another person in any way, is against my human rights; whether it’s to do with my genes or choices, sexuality or mortality or anthing else is irrelevant.
Report abuse
#40 I agree to a point. Unfortunately vulnerability can be an issue (even with a supposed ‘consenting adult’) and many laws still exist for that very reason.
There was the guy that volunteered to be the ‘victim’ of a cannibal… I’m guessing you would still consider that laws preventing that type of behaviour should stand?
We need a society that allows someone to determine their own sexual preference in their own time without accidentally pushing them into the willing arms of predatory types. We are kidding ourselves if we don’t accept that among men and women there are both predatory heterosexuals and predatory homosexuals. Alas, the latter can cause more psychological damage to a young male so it is very important that we allow young men, in particular, to explore their sexuality while keeping them safe.
Report abuse
#31 Michael Neal: “Why is something morally acceptable because it is ‘natural’ (whatever that means) and something that is ‘unnatural’ morally unacceptable?”.
Yes of course there are no such things as ‘natural bodily functions’. I, for example, am part of a growing movement of people who eat with their ears and breathe through their eyes – and we demand respect from all you old fashioned bigots who think that it is ‘natural’ (whatever that means) to eat with your mouths and breathe through your noses. I mean, c’mon, this is the 21st Century…
Report abuse
J Lamborrai – “IMO any law that restricts what I do to myself(or to a consenting adult) without effecting another person in any way, is against my human rights; whether it’s to do with my genes or choices, sexuality or mortality or anthing else is irrelevant.”
Does this include taking drugs? the problem is that certain behaiviors have a knock on effect that do affect others ( please note correct use of the words effect and affect )
Report abuse
To No 22…
Don’t be mistaken – “He” doesn’t need any congregations…
Its those organisations claiming to represent Him which need the congregations, i.e. so-called “established” churches who rely on large congregations and support…
But that is not the issue here, so I’ll leave that point as it is.
Glad to see that there are so many in favour of the States support of this human rights issue…
Report abuse
J Lamborrari 40
thanks for the explanation, we are in agreement
Also I agree with Joker 39.
26 and 30 were a couple of the better posts I’ve seen on this site
Report abuse
@Leah Holmes #41
“…There was the guy that volunteered to be the ‘victim’ of a cannibal… I’m guessing you would still consider that laws preventing that type of behaviour should stand?…”
You guess wrong; if both people could be considered sane than anything goes.
“…the latter can cause more psychological damage to a young male so it is very important that we allow young men, in particular, to explore their sexuality while keeping them safe…”
Not a big fan of sexism myself. Why do you think that a predatory homosexual would do more damage to a young gay man than a predatory heterosexual female?
Report abuse
@ Willie Eckerslike #43
“…Does this include taking drugs?…”
Yes, it asbloteuly do.
(note that correct spelling of your name)
I is no grammer-nazi me, but ain’t the difference between affecting ‘n’ effecting, in the context of my post you quoted, that ‘affecting’ would be influencing the third other party, and ‘effecting’ would actually be having a material effect on them? In which case I’ll stand by my original post, as I don’t care what influence my actions have; only actual effects. If i is wrong than i apologize; I’m well sorry.
Report abuse
@ Mjolnir Lestatj #42
What are you on about? It appears you *might* be trying to form some sort of argument, but I not sure??
Who is not respecting you for the way you eat and breath?
Report abuse
I have been a way for a while and so missed the Sates debate and only found this page an hour ago. Whilst I find many of the comments a little confusing, I think the fact that Islanders/residents are contributing to this emotitional subject, highly encouraging whether or not they are in favour. I am strongly in favour even though I am not yet sure I will take advantage when the law is passed.
Report abuse
J Lamborrai – “IMO any law that restricts what I do to myself(or to a consenting adult) without effecting another person in any way, is against my human rights
Rest assured that if you engage in “family planning behaviour” with someone of the same sex as yourself, there is no chance that you will EFFECT another person in any way whatsoever…
Report abuse
I’m sure this is a good idea and makes you think of a society more at ease with itself. One of the more unattractive traits of Jersey, like the Republic of Ireland, was the deeply socially reactionary nature of many of our institutions and certain sections of our society. The only thing we’ve been quick to change are the laws to keep our finance sector humming along. Everything else has been footdragging, from employment rights to consumer rights.
It might have a negative effect on our Financial Services industry’s ability to sell its services to Middle Eastern clients, but so what.
Report abuse
@ Mjolnir Lestat #50
Again; you seem to be trying to make a point, but I’m lost as to exactly what point??
Am I right in assuming that “family planning behaviour” is supposed to be a euphemism for sexual intercourse? If so, obviously same sex couple aren’t going to procreate, and I don’t think anybody here(or anywhere over the age of about 5years) really needed your reassurance on this. If it’s not a euphemism, than you’re wrong.
Report abuse
#46 “Why do you think that a predatory homosexual would do more damage to a young gay man than a predatory heterosexual female?”
Because, regardless of how much the world wishes everything to be very PC, our evolutionary instincts are not always as PC as we would like them to be. Whether you consider it right or wrong is irrelevant, a heterosexual male can be more psychologically damaged by being preyed upon by a homosexual male. There are some things that you cannot change. What concerns me is the harm done to them, not how PC their reaction is.
What people say and what their actions show can be very different. Heterosexual males who say they have no issue with homosexuality often react in a way that totally belies this statement when hit on by a homosexual male.
“You guess wrong; if both people could be considered sane than anything goes.” Thankfully current psychiatric diagnostic standards do not allow for someone to be ruled sane when doing this level of harm to their own body.
I don’t believe we are helping homosexuals by forcing everyone to say the right thing on the issue (same goes for race relations, immigration etc). Too many people feel they have to claim to be okay with homosexuality when in fact they aren’t. It would be better if people could speak out so their thoughts could be aired and then they could be responded to appropriately. As it is the PC-fans just force everyone to be silent unless their views are totally PC, then no issues are raised and, therefore, no issues are answered. How that is helpful I do not know!
If we want to change people’s views we actually need to know what their views are, not just assume to know them. I only have one issue with homosexuality and it it gay clubs. I have been to a few gay clubs in my time, and I will never, ever go to one again because of the behaviour I witnessed in all of them. God forbid, of course, that I ever get to say that publicly because I would be told I was being narrow-minded and that it isn’t ALL gay clubs. Well, asking around friends and family, it seems that my experiences are not remotely uncommon! Am I being a bigot to say that I won’t go to a gay club ever again? Frankly, no, I have simply learned from experience.
Anyway, what is PC about having gay clubs? If you have one you have to have the other.
Report abuse
@ Leah Holmes #53
I find it difficult to follow your reasoning regarding the psychological damage done to a person because of their gender/sexual orientation. I think the attitude you seem to be displaying is incredibly sexist, and while I understand that not everything is going to be ‘PC’ (as you put it; I prefer to be equal than ‘PC’) to use that as an excuse to allow one group of people to be treated differently is wrong. Whether people think my opinion irrelevant or not.
“…Anyway, what is PC about having gay clubs?…”
Absolutely nothing as far as I’m aware. Never been to a ‘gay club’ that didn’t allow straight people in, seen plenty of ‘bad’ behaviour in non-gay centric places too. I’m not sure what your problem is.
I also find it had, in a discussion about equality, to lump homosexuality/race issues together with immigration issues; I think the immigration is much more an adminstration issue rather than an equality one.
Report abuse
Leah 53.
I am very sorry, but I completely disagree with your comments about gay clubs. I have to say I have been to many gay clubs, especially when at uni with some gay male friends and I have never felt so safe… I have never experienced any violence or come across any thefts… slightly different to having various items stolen on different nights out in other clubs.
I think it is quite sad that many gay people only feel comftable in gay clubs… I know people who won’t go out into town because of how people look at them and judge them… but you can be sure no one will judge you in a gay bar. You are accepted for how you are and what you are.
Report abuse
#49 J Lamborrari
I was confused by his meaning too!
#53 Leah Holmes
While I agree that a young man who engages in a homosexual relationship is more likely to be upset by it at a later date than one who engages in a heterosexual one, I think this is much more to do with society’s homophobia than ‘evolutionary instincts’.
Re psychiatric diagnoses, I’m not sure I agree. What diagnosis would you give someone described? Some kind of personality disorder presumably?
Report abuse