Signs Of Life On The Thailand Same Sex Civil Unions Issue

[Jingthing]

I've said before I think it's inevitable that someday Thailand will have legal same sex marriage but I haven't felt that Thailand would be a pioneer in Asean, but who knows? Well, it looks like something might actually be happening now on the same sex partnership front. The linked article is very, very vague, but maybe there's something behind it?

The Thai government has formed a committee to draft legislation on civil-partnership law for same-sex couples.

...

I'm not sure how long it will take.

Sounding very familiar!

http://www.gaystarne...rship-law171212

Edited December 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Good news, however vague. I think most of us have predicted that it will happen eventually, but how long?

[tombkk]

How reliable is that publication? Is this a rumour or do we have a back-up from Thai media?

I‘m skeptical because it sounds too good to be true.

Sent from my LG-P698f using Thaivisa Connect App

[Jingthing]

Anjana Suvarnananda is a long standing, well known Thai gay rights activist so IF she really said that, there's likely something to it. I agree the article is sketchy at best.

http://www.iglhrc.or...rtners/438.html

Edited December 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Yes, I know about Khun Anjana. If this news is true, it wonder why this is not in any Thai publication, that's all.

[LeCharivari]

Agreed, Tom - I'll believe something is actually happening when there's something in the Thai press about it, as its a bit odd that the Anjaree Foundation hasn't said something about this.

[Jingthing]

Yes, I know about Khun Anjana. If this news is true, it wonder why this is not in any Thai publication, that's all.

Maybe the "Thai press" doesn't think the seedlings of a Thai gay rights story is worth reporting on? Holding up the "Thai press" as the gold standard even IN Thailand is actually comical. It's not as if the "Thai press" is saying this DIDN'T happen, is it? In any case, I tend to believe the source and the story. I see no reason at all to doubt the credibility of Gay Star News, or the author of the story who is Asia and Australia correspondent for Gay Star News. While Gay Star News is hardly the New York Times, think about this for a second. The story is of a VERY MODEST development. If you were motivated to report a fictional new stories about gay rights developments in Thailand, you'd tend to go a lot bigger.

Whether anything develops out of this activity I would be much less confident about.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

The story is of a VERY MODEST development.

IF correct I'd say its a MASSIVE development, in any country. According to the story "The Thai government has formed a committee to draft legislation on civil-partnership law for same-sex couples. ....the committee has already met and the timetable for drafting recognition of same-sex partnerships is six weeks.... then they will send it to a legal department who will iron it out and make it more legal language. And then it needs to get approval from the government. "

Considering how much publicity has been given in the Thai press (English and Thai language) to many other much less significant Thai "gay marriage" stories and attempts just to get proposals accepted for consideration, let alone draft legislation, this is apparently the biggest development in gay rights in Thailand since similar legislation was debated and rejected under the military government, and the biggest development ever under an elected government.

IF correct its also particularly significant under the present government as Thaksin was widely seen as homophobic, and when his then interior minister Purachai Piamsomboon suggested considering gay marriage Thaksin dismissed it as a "Western idea".

I can't see what could be "much bigger" news on the gay rights front in Thailand than news that the Thai government, with a large majority in parliament, was actually in the process of drafting formal legislation to approve of same-sex civil partnerships. I'm not saying its not true, or that Gay Star News hasn't got a scoop, but it just seems very strange that no-one else seems aware of this.

Edited December 25, 2012 by tombkk
: Font

[Jingthing]

It's a committee. A committee. How many things discussed in a committee ever actually become LAW in any country? Again, I believe the story. I see no reason NOT to believe the story. But to jump from that to get excited that Thailand is on the verge of national legalization of same sex partnerships; it's really way too early. Which the short article basically says as well.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Yes, I know about Khun Anjana. If this news is true, it wonder why this is not in any Thai publication, that's all.

Maybe the "Thai press" doesn't think the seedlings of a Thai gay rights story is worth reporting on? Holding up the "Thai press" as the gold standard even IN Thailand is actually comical. It's not as if the "Thai press" is saying this DIDN'T happen, is it? In any case, I tend to believe the source and the story. I see no reason at all to doubt the credibility of Gay Star News, or the author of the story who is Asia and Australia correspondent for Gay Star News. While Gay Star News is hardly the New York Times, think about this for a second. The story is of a VERY MODEST development. If you were motivated to report a fictional new stories about gay rights developments in Thailand, you'd tend to go a lot bigger.

Whether anything develops out of this activity I would be much less confident about.

I never said that the Thai press is the Gold standard. But if anything controversial like this happens, they would pick it up: Controversy sells newspapers.

[LeCharivari]

It's a committee. A committee.

IF the story is to be believed its NOT just "a committee" - its a "THAI GOVERNMENT" committee formed specifically to "DRAFT LEGISLATION" which will then be debated in parliament. That's a totally different thing from a committee formed to "discuss" something.

Either its correct, in which case its a massive and identifiable leap forward, or its incorrect. There really isn't any middle ground.

[Jingthing]

The middle ground obviously is the law proposal is just a meaningless exercise and when it gets sent to legal (and obviously POLITICAL) review it gets buried. Until it's a law that exists and has been passed, it's not much more than a business plan for a billion dollar business drawn on a napkin. So far the only source for this story is the Gay Star News. A Reuters correspondent based in Bangkok included the link to the same story on his blog, but without comment; however, I take that action as suggesting that he thinks the story from Gay Star News is for real, as do I. However, it doesn't follow an actual law will actually HAPPEN anytime soon.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

A little more detail from Gay Star News. Again, I believe it. Note the wording here. Supposing they approve a way to "register" same sex relationships. That doesn't actually mean those relationships will have the same legal rights as married couples. As far as impact on expat-Thai same sex couples (visa/immigration matters), I reckon a very slim chance of that being addressed by this:

Are there any moves towards gay marriage in Thailand?

We are moving towards recognition of same-sex marriage. There is now some preparation work within the parliament to draft a new act but we cover more like a couple's registration or civil partnership, we don't have a name for it yet.

I have been invited into the committee iwho are drafting legislation for recognition of same-sex marriage for parliament. They want to do with with six weeks, but we'll see.

It's just drafting. And then they will send it to a legal department who will iron it out and make it more legal language. And then after that we get approval for sponsorship by the government. And then it needs to get approval from the government. I'm not sure how long it will take.

http://www.gaystarne...-thailand181212 Edited December 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Let's watch it then.

[LeCharivari]

The second article is clearly back-pedalling on the first, where the interview with Anjana has been highly "edited" for effect .

They have gone from a government committee to a committee; from the Thai government is drafting legislation to "preparation work"; from "the committee has already met" with Anjana on it to "I have been invited into the committee"; from "then it needs to get approval from the government" to "then after that we get approval for sponsorship by the government. And then it needs to get approval from the government."

Basically, the first article can be ignored as sensationalism and very poor reporting as the second, lengthier, article indicates that there is nothing new at government level at all.

[Jingthing]

Continuing now with the Thailand same sex civil union "watch" now that there is some more rather major and credible news.

It comes by way of the Bangkok Post so can only briefly describe.

There was an event on 8 February at Bangkok's Rajabhat University. It was the first public reading of an actual BILL and the House committee on Legal Affairs, Justice, and Human Right was in attendance. The bill is about legalizing same sex civil unions. The bill comes from the dominant PTP party.

Three additional public meetings are planned. Strong opposition to this bill is expected. Like in any country, the issue of same sex civil unions or marriage is very controversial. Proponents of same sex civil unions already have an initial plan to fight the opposition. The current language of bill allows for a Thai to enter a civil union with a foreigner. No mention as yet of any IMMIGRATION implications if such a bill is actually passed.

Thailand may be on the verge of being a pioneer in the Asean region. Stay tuned.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Continuing now with the Thailand same sex civil union "watch" now that there is some more rather major and credible news.

It comes by way of the Bangkok Post so can only briefly describe.

There was an event on 8 February at Bangkok's Rajabhat University. It was the first public reading of an actual BILL and the House committee on Legal Affairs, Justice, and Human Right was in attendance. The bill is about legalizing same sex civil unions. The bill comes from the dominant PTP party.

Three additional public meetings are planned. Strong opposition to this bill is expected. Like in any country, the issue of same sex civil unions or marriage is very controversial. Proponents of same sex civil unions already have an initial plan to fight the opposition. The current language of bill allows for a Thai to enter a civil union with a foreigner. No mention as yet of any IMMIGRATION implications if such a bill is actually passed.

Thailand may be on the verge of being a pioneer in the Asean region. Stay tuned.

Thanks for alerting us, JT.

[Jingthing]

I reckon to expats here the potential immigration aspect might be of greater interest. OK, so I'm assuming if they do pass a national same sex civil partner legalization that the immigration laws will still refer only to MARRIAGE and that nothing will change with immigration unless there is a separate later change specifically in the immigration law to include civil partners. Does that sound right? If that's the case, it sounds like a long shot because the only Thai constituency that would be interested in that are gay Thais in long term relationships with foreigners. A small number of people. Where is the political benefit for Thai politicians to help out a small number of gay foreigners (and their Thai spouses of course)?

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

I reckon to expats here the potential immigration aspect might be of greater interest. OK, so I'm assuming if they do pass a national same sex civil partner legalization that the immigration laws will still refer only to MARRIAGE and that nothing will change with immigration unless there is a separate later change specifically in the immigration law to include civil partners. Does that sound right? If that's the case, it sounds like a long shot because the only Thai constituency that would be interested in that are gay Thais in long term relationships with foreigners. A small number of people. Where is the political benefit for Thai politicians to help out a small number of gay foreigners (and their Thai spouses of course)?

Is there really all that much difference between married and single foreigners, as far as immigration laws are concerned? Most of us are retired, so the actual marriage only affects the amount we have to have on deposit (or coming in on pension). It's cheaper for married people, strangely! I guess we would still have to get annual visa extensions, as we do now. I very much doubt whether it would give us Thai nationality, or permanent stay; it doesn't for married couples.

[Jingthing]

For those under 50 yes it would be a big change and opportunity for long stay visas and also legally working. For over 50's, it would lower the financial requirement and allow for legal working. These changes are hardly trivial for those who it might impact.

I guess another related aspect would be about how this potential new law addresses children of gay couples, existing or adopted.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

For those under 50 yes it would be a big change and opportunity for long stay visas and also legally working. For over 50's, it would lower the financial requirement and allow for legal working. These changes are hardly trivial for those who it might impact.

I guess another related aspect would be about how this potential new law addresses children of gay couples, existing or adopted.

Just clarifying, not arguing! Wouldn't all of us still have to have work permits to work legally? This would be no difference from what happens now.

Long-stay visas..... doesn't the farang in a married couple still have to renew his visa annually?

To me, being rather a lot over 50, the most significant impact would be in access and arrangements surrounding illness and death.

[Jingthing]

For those under 50 yes it would be a big change and opportunity for long stay visas and also legally working. For over 50's, it would lower the financial requirement and allow for legal working. These changes are hardly trivial for those who it might impact.

I guess another related aspect would be about how this potential new law addresses children of gay couples, existing or adopted.

Just clarifying, not arguing! Wouldn't all of us still have to have work permits to work legally? This would be no difference from what happens now.

Long-stay visas..... doesn't the farang in a married couple still have to renew his visa annually?

To me, being rather a lot over 50, the most significant impact would be in access and arrangements surrounding illness and death.

You're confusing visas and work permits. Not the same thing. Those staying on retirement extensions can't get work permits or legally work, period. Those on marriage extensions ... CAN.

[isanbirder]

For those under 50 yes it would be a big change and opportunity for long stay visas and also legally working. For over 50's, it would lower the financial requirement and allow for legal working. These changes are hardly trivial for those who it might impact.

I guess another related aspect would be about how this potential new law addresses children of gay couples, existing or adopted.

Just clarifying, not arguing! Wouldn't all of us still have to have work permits to work legally? This would be no difference from what happens now.

Long-stay visas..... doesn't the farang in a married couple still have to renew his visa annually?

To me, being rather a lot over 50, the most significant impact would be in access and arrangements surrounding illness and death.

You're confusing visas and work permits. Not the same thing. Those staying on retirement extensions can't get work permits or legally work, period. Those on marriage extensions ... CAN.

No, I'm not confusing them. Even if you're married, can you get a work permit up to any age? Or is there a limit, say 65, as there usually is if you're 'single'? (I have heard of exceptions) Basically, you wouldn't apply for a retirement extension if you were still working.

Edited February 11, 2013 by isanbirder

[Jingthing]

Work permits and visas are different by definition. If you are going to work, you need a visa AND a work permit. On retirement extensions, you simply can't legally work, period. I know nothing about age issues for work permits. That's another issue.

Also keep in mind that those working in Thailand longer term are free to apply for PERMANENT RESIDENCE status, a potential path not available to people on retirement extensions.

[isanbirder]

Please THINK, JT. We all know work permits and visas are different things. I've been here over 20 years, and been through the whole rigmarole (except getting married!), Non-immigrant visa coexisting with work permit, work permit ceasing when I retired, and the change of status on my visa to retirement. The only differences for married people are the financial bit (stated above), and the fact that they have to submit different documents for annual renewal of their visa (I think it's an O visa too).

Apart from the financial bit, I do not think married people have ANY advantages in relation to Immigration. It may be easier for them to get such things as Letter confirming Residence, and Driving Licence. It would give a person no advantages concerning working which all of us, married or single, do not already have.

The main advantage that I see is that the Civil Union Partner would be Next-of-Kin, and if you've ever had to deal with the bureaucracy over someone's death, as I have (my partner, who was Hong Kong Chinese), you will know that's a big advantage.

I'm not up-to-date with the ease or otherwise of getting Permanent Residence. I have a friend who got it, but that was some time ago. When Purachai was Interior Minister under Thaksin, all applications for PR were cancelled because there was suspicion of irregularities (probably quite sound suspicion, I would guess). I've heard nothing since then, so perhaps you can tell me if it's now any easier to get; it used to be damned difficult.

[Jingthing]

Please THINK, IB.

(Was that really necessary?)

OK some information for you.

For marriage extensions immigration wants to see WORK income of 40K baht.

EMPLOYERS prefer to hire foreigners MARRIED to Thais because they know they've got the visa part sorted with MARRIAGE.

The job part is linked to the work permit.

People under 50 can't stay on retirement extensions.

People who came here over 50 on retirement extensions have no path towards permanent residence and no way to work on these.

People who do work longer term DO have a path towards permanent residence.

I am not the visa encyclopedia, but I know for sure people are getting permanent residence approvals these days just reading the visa forum.

If gay people had marriage status with immigration they WOULD have an additional OPTION (marriage status) for their visa, work, and permanent residence path goals.

If you find this stuff value-less, that's fine with. I do not and I have thought about it.

Look at it another way, do you reckon the heterosexual people who are staying, working and become PR here in Thailand would be happy to see the MARRIAGE extension option taken away? Do you think THOSE people think this option has no value?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

As I said, I did not know the current situation on PR; thank you for that.

"EMPLOYERS prefer to hire foreigners MARRIED to Thais because they know they've got the visa part sorted with MARRIAGE."

Is that really true?

Apart from the PR bit, is there any great advantage? I should like to hear from other people on that. I can't see it myself.

[Jingthing]

As I said, I did not know the current situation on PR; thank you for that.

"EMPLOYERS prefer to hire foreigners MARRIED to Thais because they know they've got the visa part sorted with MARRIAGE."

Is that really true?

Apart from the PR bit, is there any great advantage? I should like to hear from other people on that. I can't see it myself.

Siam Legal makes that claim about the employer's preference.

The question again is do you seriously think the people using marriage for extensions now would be happy to have that option taken away from them? That's your answer. Of course they wouldn't.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Is there really all that much difference between married and single foreigners, as far as immigration laws are concerned? Most of us are retired, so the actual marriage only affects the amount we have to have on deposit (or coming in on pension). It's cheaper for married people, strangely! I guess we would still have to get annual visa extensions, as we do now. I very much doubt whether it would give us Thai nationality, or permanent stay; it doesn't for married couples.

Hopefully this thread won't become one more suited to the Visas, Residency and Work Permits Forum, but in general you are clearly quite correct - even if it equaled marriage (to a Thai) in ALL respects it wouldn't make much difference to most people apart from the reduced pension/income requirement for Retirement extensions.

As you say, marriage doesn't have ANY effect on Thai nationality (forget it!) and is NOT a requirement for Permanent Residence for the few who can be bothered to waste a lot of time, money and effort getting something which confers few tangible benefits apart from not having to report to Immigration every 90 days and to apply for Retirement renewals every year - no right of abode, no right to own land, etc, etc.

... and it doesn't have ANY effect on such minor things you mention as Proof of Address letters from Immigration or Driving Licences, etc - the former simply require some "proof" such as a phone bill, cable TV bill, etc, while the latter requires pretty well any visa other than a Tourist visa. You could get your name put in a yellow Tambian Baan more easily to avoid the requirement for that proof of address letter every 5 years when renewing your driving licence, but that's about it.

As I've said before, formal marriage really isn't that significant to most Thais which is probably why gay marriage isn't such a big deal to gay Thais.

I am not the visa encyclopedia

So it would appear

Those staying on retirement extensions can't get work permits or legally work, period. Those on marriage extensions ... CAN.

..... EMPLOYERS prefer to hire foreigners MARRIED to Thais because they know they've got the visa part sorted with MARRIAGE. ..... Also keep in mind that those working in Thailand longer term are free to apply for PERMANENT RESIDENCE status, a potential path not available to people on retirement extensions.

..... People who came here over 50 on retirement extensions have no path towards permanent residence and no way to work on these.

..... Look at it another way, do you reckon the heterosexual people who are staying, working and become PR here in Thailand would be happy to see the MARRIAGE extension option taken away? Do you think THOSE people think this option has no value?

..... The question again is do you seriously think the people using marriage for extensions now would be happy to have that option taken away from them? That's your answer. Of course they wouldn't

Yes, those staying here on Retirement extensions, married OR single, cannot get get Work Permits while those on Marriage extensions can - but so can all those, married OR single, on Non-Immigrant visas which are considerably simpler to obtain than a marriage visa if the applicant has a firm offer of employment.

The vast majority of employers could care less if an applicant is married to a Thai or not - if an applicant for a job is unable to get an appropriate visa without resorting to getting married to a Thai then I doubt if any potential employer would think very much of their initiative. This suggestion really is nonsense.

The whole question of marriage leading to a work permit leading to permanent residency is moot. You do NOT need to be married in order to get a work permit, just to have the right visa which is readily obtainable, married OR single; neither do you need to be married in order to apply for or to be granted Permanent Residence.

Edited February 14, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

.... I guess another related aspect would be about how this potential new law addresses children of gay couples, existing or adopted.

Now there you've hit on what could be a major hurdle to equality, JT - if the new law equates foreign gay marriage/civil unions with Thai marriage, with adoption rights, etc, it could open up a whole new can of worms and potential arguments for the opposition. The idea of a gay foreign couple being able to come to Thailand and legally adopt a Thai boy (of any age, up to 18) and take them back to their own country with them is one which could provide the opposition with plenty of ammunition if it were even hinted at in a bill.