From Matthew Green and Jonathan Lyon.
WE understand from the JEP article on 2 September that there is to be a forthcoming debate and vote in the States regarding the introduction of UK-style civil partnership legislation.

We are aware that this is likely to be considered a controversial piece of legislation and we hope that this letter will furnish your readers with some arguments which we believe show that, although Jersey is often seen as very conservative, such legislation will not just benefit homosexual couples seeking to enter a civil partnership, but also the Island as a whole – both socially and economically.

For homosexual individuals who are directly affected by this matter, it is clear that the status quo harbours injustice within the Jersey community, as a result of nothing more than the gender of the person they choose to spend their life with. There are disparities in terms of Social Security benefits, in terms of tax, in terms of housing qualifications and in terms of next-of-kin status.

For example, in circumstances where long term incapacity benefits or income support is required, Social Security would consider a person in a same-sex relationship to have a dependant, hence allowing for reduced payments, while the government and tax department do not recognise the relationship for other matters. No one could argue that this is anything but a lose/lose scenario for those in same sex relationships.

Within our own relationship, one of us is Jersey born and one is not. It worries us greatly that should one of us die, the other would be left with no housing qualifications and could face eviction, during a time of grief, from a home jointly paid for and maintained. Additionally, should either of us end up in hospital or in a situation reliant on the other, it could be very difficult to have our wishes for one another followed should other legal family members choose to dispute them.

When heterosexual couples enter into marriage, the recognition of this by the States
allows them to avoid such complications. This right is currently denied to us, with the implication that our relationship is less valid because of whom we are.

Aside from the argument of social justice, there are also legitimate business reasons for introducing such partnerships. Jersey has recently struggled to encourage young people to live and work on the Island, particularly with respect to returning after university or education in the UK. Economically, this means vast amounts of public funds have been spent on educating individuals who will reap the rewards of this but ultimately make tax contributions elsewhere.

For some of these individuals, the decision to return will be made together with a same-sex partner, and an important factor will be whether their relationship can be acknowledged and protected by law.

Additionally, Jersey attracts many large global companies that are at the forefront of providing equality in the work place. These companies create jobs and increase wealth and with more and more countries around the world acknowledging civil partnerships, Jersey could potentially lose out where companies are seeking to expand operations, if our laws don’t support the pledges for equality which these companies make to their own employees.

More directly, we already know of couples locally who have had partnership ceremonies in the UK. It is widely known that such ceremonies, just like weddings, are not cheap. Of the several cases in question, tens of thousands of pounds have been spent, benefiting companies outside Jersey (not to mention the GST which would have been paid). This hardly adheres to the ethos of ‘recycling your pound’.

Indeed, our beleaguered tourism industry would certainly be the first to benefit, as many of the attractions and hotels on the Island are licensed to host civil ceremonies, and would no doubt cater for reception parties and provide accommodation for friends and family from overseas. It is also feasible that couples from the UK or elsewhere would decide to hold their ceremonies on the Island; after all, few places can match such stunning and photogenic locations.

Economically the introduction of a civil partnership law appears to be, as some would say, ‘a no-brainer’ and it is generally acknowledged that happier people who feel secure are more productive.

We accept that there is going to be a strong lobby against such partnerships for either
religious or personal reasons. Traditionalists’ only real argument against same-sex partnerships is that marriage is a union, prescribed by God, between a man and a woman, or that homosexuality is in someway immoral or unnatural and should not be encouraged.

From the religious perspective, what we must bear in mind is that we are fortunate enough to live in a secular, modern and civilised society, where our laws reflect the balanced needs for safety and security of the people therein, and are not an unwavering interpretation of Biblical commandments.

Those who do use the religious argument so vehemently should look in detail at some of the other laws laid down in Leviticus, such as demanding the stoning to death of disobedient children, for example.

The central message of Christianity is one of fairness and equality for all. We even have brave men and women fighting to spread fairness and equality against the ideology of the Taliban right now, and yet we can’t say we have justice for all at home.

In today’s society we allow divorcees to remarry, we have contraception and abortion, and we actively support single-parent families. All these have set a precedent to clearly show that the more ‘extreme’ elements of religious conservatism have rightly been removed from our legal equation, in preference to allowing people to exercise their personal freedom and make their own decisions in life.

To end this letter, we feel it would be very sad to see the efforts to introduce civil partnerships being halted simply because certain Members of the States may hold personal feelings or hostilities against homosexuals, borne purely of a school-playground, bullying mentality, which has never been challenged by personal research into the medical and scientific facts on homosexuality, or engaging in discussion with those directly affected.