Sydney,
Australia — On 12th October 2001 His Honour
Justice Richard Chisholm of the Family Court of Australia
delivered a landmark judgement Kevin and Jennifer -v- The
Attorney General for the Commonwealth whereby a Sydney
couple won their legal battle against the Commonwealth to
have their marriage declared to be valid
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2001/1074.html>.
The Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia
appealed against that decision to the Full Court of the
Family Court of Australia. Today the Full Court of the
Family Court of Australia dismissed the Commonwealth's
appeal.
The decision of His
Honour Justice Richard Chisholm, which declared the law
of Australia, is of considerable legal and social
significance; especially for people who have experienced
variation in their sexual development or formation as
human beings such as transsexualism; as well as their
loved ones, family and friends.
The full text of the
judgement can be accessed at
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2003/94.html>
The singular question to
be answered in the original 2001 case was whether Kevin,
the Applicant Husband, was a man for the purpose of the
marriage law of Australia notwithstanding his transsexual
background; such people as Kevin being formerly more
commonly referred to as 'a post operative female to male
transsexual'.
Kevin and Jennifer's
Media Statement - 21st February 2003
"We
are relieved and encouraged by the Full Court's
decision delivered today. Our original faith in the
Australian legal system, so well fulfilled by Justice
Richard Chisholm's 2001 decision in our case, has been
reaffirmed. Our marriage has again been declared
legally valid according to the law of
Australia.
Our
marriage has been described as a "transsexual
marriage", but in fact it is just an ordinary
marriage, a mix of challenges, triumphs and joy, as
other marriages are. We attract no special attention,
we seek no special treatment. We are a typical
Australian couple, an average man and woman, raising
our precious children responsibly in a loving home.
One of us happens to have a medical condition, an
example of human variation, known as
transsexualism.
Transsexualism
need not prevent people from leading healthy,
fulfilling and productive lives, from enjoying social
acceptance, stable employment, loving relationships,
parenthood and marriage."
"Kevin
& Jennifer"
Rachael Wallbank -
Applicants' lawyer
"The
reality is that a small but significant proportion of
the population experience difference in their sexual
formation as human beings requiring both medical and
legal sex reassignment. Justice Chisholm found in
2001, and the Full Court of the Family Court of
Australia has now confirmed, that Kevin, a man of
transsexual background (in the past perhaps more
commonly medically described as a post-operative
'female-to-male transsexual'), is a man within the
ordinary, everyday meaning of that word and according
to the law of Australia.
His
Honour also found that, in so far as the test of a
person's sex for the purpose of marriage is concerned,
the law of Australia should not be limited to one
arbitrary set of characteristics, but should have
regard to all of the sexually differentiated
biological characteristics of a person, including
brain sex, as well as the cultural characteristics of
the person such as his or her lived sex.
I hope
people can begin to appreciate the incredible courage
demonstrated by Kevin and Jennifer in their bringing
of this case and seeing it through both the original
hearing and this appeal."
Kevin and Jennifer and
their legal team trust that the understanding and
inclusive message contained in the 2001 judgement by His
Honour Justice Richard Chisholm of the Family Court of
Australia, now confirmed by the Full Court of the Family
Court of Australia in 2003, confirms that Australians
continue to be a people conspicuous for their humanity
and sense of justice.
