A second-class union
Although celebrated as a step in the right direction, there is plenty missing from the proposed civil partnership bill for the LGBTI community
It’s not like we have any alternatives now. We do have to grab anything that comes our way
The prospect of marriage equality has always brought excitement and joy for LGBTI communities worldwide. In Thailand, the possibility of the civil partnership bill — viewed as a step closer to coveted equality — has been discussed frequently in our society lately, especially after a draft of the bill was released earlier this month on the Rights and Liberties Protection Department (RLPD) of the Ministry of Justice’s website. But the initial excitement quickly faded when people read the fine print of what the bill really entails, and began questioning whether it really spells out equal rights.
The released draft mainly focuses on the financial aspect of a relationship, including asset management and inheritance. But there is no mention of establishing a family, adoption or reproductive technology, to name just a few of the missing rights, disappointing many LGBTI people.
It should be noted that this civil partnership bill was drafted by a committee organised by the RLPD, with seven members sought from local LGBTI organisations among the 32 members of the committee.
In response to the bill, several activists
have pointed out its discriminatory aspects, which are not in line with international human rights principles. They have since called for signatories in an attempt to persuade the committee to slow down the process and consider other aspects and rights that this bill should cover. They plan to present the signatories to related state departments, the general public and media later this week.
For Thai LGBTIs, the group that would directly benefit from the bill, many agree this bill is quite far from what they envision equality would look like.
“The bill looks more like a registration for a business partnership, not about same-sex marriage at all,” commented Jetsada Taesombat, executive director of the Foundation of Transgender Alliance for Human Rights.
The activist further stated that the bill mainly concerns the end of a relationship, but doesn’t touch on several fundamental rights that should be allowed during the relationship itself, such as welfare, the rights of civil servants that entitle their immediate family members to certain benefits (healthcare and education, for example), an ability to change to their partner’s last name, and more. These rights are covered if heterosexual couples are legally married to one another. But same-sex couples, whose best bet so far is this civil partnership bill, won’t be allowed the same rights, entitlements and benefits as married heterosexual couples.
The LGBTI community’s views toward this bill are quite divided, said Jetsada. While advocates feel the bill barely involves marriage equality, generally couples do view that at least it’s better than nothing.
Stuck in the dilemma of this looming bill is same-sex couple Anoporn Khruataeng and Chanita Sukwajanee from Life Skills Thailand. The two work in advocacy and organise workshops on gender and empowerment. After almost seven years together, they also operate a small resort, apartment and coffee shop together.
Viewing this bill from the perspective of both a same-sex couple that operates a business together, and as gender advocates, Anoporn commented that the bill and those who drafted it haven’t considered other dimensions in a person’s life and relationship at all.
“If anything, I think it further accentuates that we’re not equal to one another,” she said.
Not being able to marry her partner legally affects a lot of things, said Anoporn. From the issue of taxes to not being able to take out a joint loan, she finds this a limitation in business and in general life.
The couple also had issues with getting life insurance, initially, as many companies didn’t allow same-sex partners to be named beneficiaries. But a few companies have since relented. Anoporn said she also keeps a digital file of her will as a precaution.
She went on to describe a situation in which a person ends up in hospital and their same-sex partner isn’t allowed to make any decision on their behalf, whether to sign a release form for surgery, or even to continue or stop treatment in life-threatening cases. Their relationship is not recognised and validated. And the draft bill doesn’t address this issue either.
Still, despite all its limitations, Anoporn said that if the bill is passed, she and her partner will probably register as civil partners out of necessity.
“It’s not like we have any alternatives now. We do have to grab anything that comes our way,” she said. “But do I want it? No, I want better. I want equality.”
Her partner, Chanita, views this bill as the beginning of more to come — an entry point.
“We gotta start somewhere, I guess. Go slow. Then, in the future maybe someone can improve on it, but I also don’t know if there’ll be other opportunities for us to do so,” she said. “If we don’t want this bill, we also don’t know how long we’ll have to wait before something else comes by.”
So what’s an alternative solution to this limbo? Jetsada, Anoporn and Chanita all agree that there’s one way to make everyone equal, and that is to fix the existing marriage law — the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1448 — which states that only a man and a woman of legal age can marry each other. They suggest that the gender can be omitted, and use the words “two persons” instead of “man and woman” to open up marriage to everyone.
“Every change in the law comes with certain opposition. This one, too. But I think in the end it’s up to the intention of the lawmakers whether they really want people to be equal to one another or not,” said Anoporn. “And, seriously, would anybody lose anything if we all have equal rights?”
In some countries, the process of marriage equality did come step-by-step, and some did start out as a certain form of civil partnership or recognition before legalising same-sex marriage. But now that we’ve observed other countries’ progress and the evolution of their movement, the three asked why we have to start from zero like others did years ago. Is it not possible for Thailand to change this marriage law and grant equality in just one go?
Additionally, there are concerns that the words “civil partnership” could raise complications in the future, as it’s not mentioned anywhere else in the law. The rights and entitlements that come with “spouse” then wouldn’t be applied to this partnership.
On a more positive note, Jetsada opines that this bill does address some needs of LGBTI people. If it is passed, it could compel society to be more accepting of gender diversity and equality. She believes it’s at least a good sign that the state is taking steps, however tentative, to push for some legal change for the community.
For the state, Jetsada suggested that any changes in the law — especially regarding gender and sexuality — should also come with some form of education and awareness for law enforcement officers and registrars — for them to have better gender sensitivity in dealing with LGBTI people to prevent unintentional marginalisation and mistreatment.
“And now on the people’s part, what everyone can do is look at the bill’s draft and voice their opinions on whether they agree or disagree with it. Have an academic debate and exchange this body of knowledge because this concerns us all,” she said.