How to make policy: hide it in other policy. Layla moran and the lib dems at conference

[Anlaf]

lib dem conference voting this morning on equal marriage - Layla Moran proposing motion on equal marriage, particularly in NI and movingly mentioning testimony of the journalist Lyra Mckee, killed this year. Also to cover strengthening rights of cohabiting couples and for anyone awake enough to notice:

Remove the spousal veto
Obstacles still exist preventing equal marriage in England and Wales, including the spousal veto which allows the married spouse of a trans person to veto their spouse's full legal gender recognition and hands a person's ability to self-identify to their partner, who may not have their best intentions at heart.

www.libdems.org.uk/f9-equal-marriage

I have no doubt the spousal veto (which I would rather describe as the partner of a person transitioning being able request an end to the marriage, rather than become married to someone of the same (or in a gay couple, opposite) legal sex) is worthy of political debate.

Surely worth more attention than hiding it in a bullet point towards the bottom of a motion on another topic?

In what way is a divorce a veto? You can still transition, you just can't force someone to stay married to you while you're doing so, which is as it should be?

And yes the lib dems did bring in sex self ID as part of a wider and hard fought motion on All women shortlists at a previous conference. I have not met anyone who noticed that inclusion til much later.

Why do they keep calling it a veto?

I think it's fair to give the wives of late-transitioning men a chance to say no before the husband tells the world that after xx years in a hetsex marriage, they've both been lesbians all along.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I would be interested to hear what @TinselAngel and other transwidows think about this.

Agree with above - and also presumably a partner in a lesbian couple would want the chance to decide whether they wanted to be in a (legally) heterosexual marriage

Also note that the partner of the trans-person is described as someone "who may not have their best intentions at heart." But important to stay married to them!

Just goes to show the extent to which the Lib Dems prioritises the wishes of men over the rights and needs of women and children. And they seriously want women to vote for them?

(Apparently at conference if you want to speak on this, you'll have to get the ok from Zoe O-Connell, partner of Sarah Brown:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3399104-Times-Lib-Dem-trans-activists-hounded-abuse-victim-Natalie-Bird-Article-refers-to-Zoe-OConnell-Sarah-Brown

I do admire the capture of party bodies by vested interest groups, in a way

I also don't get why it's called a veto.

Women in this situation have to stay married then? Is the converse.

So if your husband decides to transition/ self id your relationship thereafter is recognised as a homosexual relationship, regardless of your sexual orientation or whether you are going through a divorce or not??So your divorce papers would cite you both being in a homosexual relationship when you are heterosexual and vice versa if you start off on a homosexual marriage? I hope I’ve got this wrong!
Otherwise, the Lib Dems haven’t got a functioning brain cell between them.

I also don't get why it's called a veto.

Well quite. It's deliberate political language to ensure that your sympathy goes to the person transitioning, and not the bad partner who might want to stop them obtaining legally different sex while still in marriage contract with them

This has been part of highly effective campaigning at highest levels for decades:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Apparently at conference if you want to speak on this, you'll have to get the ok from Zoe O-Connell, partner of Sarah Brown

I'm not surprised about that at all. Those two and Belcher have been dictating the policy in this area for some years now.

We should call it the trans divorce veto instead.

I'm a trans widow and have very strong views on the 'veto' based on my own experience.

Its wrong, because it places women at risk. What should happen to remove the risk of coercion is the husband legally announces his wish to transition, then a court orders an automatic divorce.
His responsibility to pay child support should be placed above his desire for hair removal or clothing.

Thanks Inebriati. I had a feeling this isn't as simple as it seems.

The veto was originally there because same sex marriage was not allowed. If a married man became legally recognised as a female then the marriage was automatically dissolved.

I can't remember if this was legally treated as a divorce or annulment or if it impacted on financial arrangements eg access to pension pots.

I do know it was there originally to protect the spouse from having their marriage dissolved against their will without recourse.

It may not have worked as intended.

Also note that the partner of the trans-person is described as someone "who may not have their best intentions at heart."

Yes. The partner could actually be thinking of herself and the children. How awful.

It may not in the best interests of the trans person that they be prevented from spending all the family's savings on breast implants and laser hair removal, but it would without a doubt be in the best interests of their children. I'm going to go ahead and give more weight to the children's best interests, personally.

It is also very much in the best interest of a spouse who wants a divorce to be allowed to get one, preferably without being guilt tripped about how meeaannn they're being.

I've never been able to get to the bottom of whether a marriage dissolved by the spousal veto would mean the transitioning partner would not have the same financial responsibilities as they would under a divorce. I suspect it may never have actually been used.

Beating this in mind, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention from TRAs.

Someone in the Lib dem debate's just claimed you have to get divorced and remarried to transition. That ain't true- here is the goverment summary:

If you’re married
You can stay married if you apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate, unless your marriage is registered under the law of Northern Ireland. You and your spouse must fill in a statutory declaration saying you both agree to stay married.

You’ll get an ‘interim certificate’ if you or your spouse do not want to remain married, or if your spouse does not fill in a statutory declaration. You can use the interim certificate as grounds to end the marriage. If your marriage is registered in England or Wales and you have an interim certificate, you’ll only get a full certificate once you end your marriage. If your marriage was registered in Scotland, you can use an interim certificate to apply to the sheriff court for a full certificate. You do not need to end your marriage first.

If you’re in a civil partnership
You must end your civil partnership or convert it to a marriage if it was registered in England, Wales or Scotland. You cannot convert your civil partnership to a marriage if it was registered anywhere else. If you decide to convert your civil partnership into a marriage you must do it before you apply to the Gender Recognition Panel. You’ll be given an interim certificate if you’re still in a civil partnership when you apply to the Gender Recognition Panel. You must end the civil partnership before you can get a full certificate.

If both you and your civil partner are applying for gender recognition
Apply at the same time as your partner - tell the administrative team your applications are linked. You may both be granted full certificates on the same day if your civil partnership was registered in England, Wales or Scotland.

Northern Ireland
If your marriage or civil partnership is registered in Northern Ireland you can only get an interim certificate. You must end your marriage or civil partnership before you can apply for a full certificate. You can use the interim certificate as grounds to end your marriage or civil partnership.

You can also watch this at home on telly:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008mn6

So basically the law assumes that the active consent of the non transitioning spouse is required for the marriage to continue. The marriage, not the transition. So the offensive bit is that the fact that many spouses may not want to remain in the marriage when a partner transitions is being officially acknowledged?

They really are the most selfish people on earth.

Motion passed! Trebles all round. Lynne Featherstone (she of the "you're not welcome in the lib dems" email) called it a "marvellous debate" #nodebate #thisisanarseandthatisanelbow

Now imagine what might happen if parties truly debated these policies, with a range of views heard, and not just buried in a motion on something else.

And yes the lib dems did bring in sex self ID as part of a wider and hard fought motion on All women shortlists at a previous conference. I have not met anyone who noticed that inclusion til much later.

So they volte faced on AWS?

I well remember the 'I won't be a token woman' T shirts - 'No' 'I remember thinking 'you'll be a stepping stone instead') ... and at the same time made sure that you didn't need to be female to be on one ...speaks volumes.

#thisisanarseandthatisanelbow

😂

Did I misunderstand this then?

My understanding was that if you lived in NI and your spouse wished to transition, this automatically ended your marriage. You had no choice in this. You would be divorced even if you both wanted to remain married. And I thought that was what this bill was meant to amend - so that doesn't have to happen if couples don't want it to.

Have I completely misunderstood??!