Ruth Hunt uses maiden speech to make wildly misleading claims about the spousal veto

[miri1985]

Penis news is the only place reporting on this so as not to give them extra clicks, heres an archive link to the article about it <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/save/www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/05/ruth-hunt-baroness-marriage-reforms-spousal-veto-house-of-lords/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/save/www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/05/ruth-hunt-baroness-marriage-reforms-spousal-veto-house-of-lords/

The baroness said: “As a practising Christian, I understand how important it is to some people that marriage for same-sex couples is different from marriage to opposite-sex couples.

“I’m not sure if it remains necessary, however, to make the legal distinction between the two. The so called ‘quadruple lock’ that prevents the Church of England marrying same-sex couples could remain in place without the need to maintain two separate legal institutions.”

Explaining the “unintended consequence” for transgender people of retaining different models of marriage, she added: “When a couple is married and one person in that marriage transitions, their partner must consent to the change to change their marriage from an opposite-sex one to a same-sex one, or vice versa. If the partner refuses, the spouse cannot receive a gender recognition certificate.

“[A person] currently has the power to stop his spouse transitioning. This doesn’t seem fair or right. And his right to veto is because marriage for same-sex couples is a different institution to marriage for opposite-sex couples.

“Making divorce easier is common sense. It helps couples navigate what is often a distressing time more easily. I would ask government though, that we explore opportunities to simplify things further marriages marriage in the eyes of the law, and as a nation, we are proud that we extended it to same-sex couples.

“Anything we can do to help trans people and their families navigate the changes that are happening in their lives, that seems sensible too.”

Would love one of the fact check sites to do a report on this but I doubt it would be seen as important enough. Anyone else notice the use of "his spouse" instead of their wonder if that was intentional.

Arrrrrrrggghhhh oh dear goddess please can she just fuck the fuck off I am SICK of these lies being repeated over and over. Get a fucking brain cell Ruth and have just a little think. Just for a minute. Think outside your sphere of experience. Maddening.

[A person] currently has the power to stop his spouse transitioning.

FFS, the usual bollocks. Why twats keep purposely regurgitating this utter lie? Why the need to lie to get people on your side, if you beliebe your side is the rigt one?

November 2019 Make More Noise
"Trans Widows and the Spousal “Veto”: a modern fable of male entitlement"
(extract)
"Google “Spousal Veto” and you will find pages and pages of articles telling you what a terrible thing this part of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) is, and how it allows the spouses of trans people to veto their transition in cruel and unusual ways. You’ll never see any evidence presented that the mythical abusive wife, who prevents her husband’s transition out of spite, exists, but that doesn’t stop her being mentioned in every article. After all as any feminist will tell you, when was the truth allowed to get in the way of anti-women propaganda?

What you won’t find, is anything explaining the effect that abolishing the “veto” would have on trans widows. So here goes.

First of all it is not a veto to transition, and it is gaslighting to suggest that it is. Who could have predicted that trans widows would be treated by the politicians in almost exactly the same way that we were treated by our ex-husbands? Why, those of us with a rudimentary understanding of patriarchy, that’s who!

Under the GRA, the transitioning spouse (usually the husband) has to have the consent [for the change of marriage status] of the non-transitioning spouse (usually the wife) before he can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. Whilst that consent remains outstanding, an interim certificate is issued. This gives any woman who does not consent, the space to get the marriage annulled/dissolved before her husband legally changes sex and becomes her wife. It prevents her being in a same sex marriage that she didn’t sign up to." (continues)

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

“Anything we can do to help trans people and their families navigate the changes that are happening in their lives, that seems sensible too.”

It should be very clear that Ruth Hunt hasnt spent any time considering the family of late transitioning husbands.

Yes I'm a bit mystified as to how it would help families.

It's so easily disprovable, I don't get it.

And why would they want to force women into a same-sex marriage? What's the point? It just seems like spite.

Its odd how many female politicians have chosen to make removing this part of the GRA such a personal battle.
Ruth Hunt joins Liz Barker (LibDem Lords) Jo Swinson & Jess Phillips MP.

I agree, it's such a no brainer. There's no loss to the trans person.

Perhaps they are all genuinely under a misapprehension. Cos we all know how that happens.

Dear oh dear, that 'news' article is something else, suits the speech I suppose. Hunt now in pole position to misinform the Lord's.
#AbolishTheLords #CitizensChamberNow

TinselAngel, for all the hard work you put in to getting the message out, this misinformation by people who really should know better, must particularly grind your gears.

It makes me feel an impotent, shouty, rage and I'm not in your situation, but I can only feel shouty because your threads have informed me.

Thanks

Does Hunt honestly intend to try and spin it that no heterosexual woman should be allowed to morally object to being unilaterally reframed into a homosexual marriage because homophobia?

My God, the seeing of female humans as mere 'things' and props in male lives has become staggering.

Her Christianity is no bar to her telling lies, apparently.

But we all know that Stonewall has been telling lies about the law for a long time. She's probably got to the point where she can't tell the difference between what's in her head and what's reality.

Misrepresentation that is easily disproved and fairly easy to grasp - so why are they pushing it?

Do politicians just get handed easy-to-chant proposals that they then parrot without checking? Give it a brief once-over, see that it ticks the 'LGBTdiversityinclusion' boxes and then start waving it around?

If so, who has handed them this little piece of not-quite-true?

Also please don't abolish the Lords, we need that 2nd chamber. Elect them, sure.

There’s an explanation for the ‘he’ - part of the speech has been omitted. This is the Hansard link. Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green begins speaking at 4.31:

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-05/debates/81678CD1-63E7-4F5A-A70F-44E3B4A4EBEC/details

Just putting in link in the interests of accuracy. I agree that it is very slippery to talk about the spousal veto. I think it is a deliberate attempt to imply it is analogous to earlier divorce legislation when spouses could delay divorces for many years by refusing permission for the marriage to end.

I would not have realised what was really involved but for TinselAngel and the other posters on the trans widows thread.

Do politicians just get handed easy-to-chant proposals that they then parrot without checking? Give it a brief once-over, see that it ticks the 'LGBTdiversityinclusion' boxes and then start waving it around?

If so, who has handed them this little piece of not-quite-true?

Trans Rights Activiststs have been working for a long time.

4 APRIL 2014 New Statesman article by Helen Belcher
"We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto"
(extract)
"For example, there’s a continuing distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages. One of the areas where this surfaces is in the area dubbed “spousal veto” by trans campaigners.

The new law allows for trans people who are already married to gain gender recognition without having to get divorced, which is extremely welcome and long overdue. However, because there remains a distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages, the spouse also must consent. The trans person cannot gain gender recognition until either the spouse consents – or they get divorced. That's what campaigners call the "spousal veto" – although government doesn’t like the term, even though it's defined in my ancient Collins Dictionary as “to refuse consent to”.

Sadly, most marriages involving trans people break down, and some do so acrimoniously, with divorce proceedings stretching out over several years, mainly due to the difficulties in agreeing over access to children and distribution of property. The new law makes no exception for divorcing spouses, so in these cases the trans person’s legal right of recognition is on hold. They can only get gender recognition when the divorce is finalised - or if their potentially hostile soon-to-be-ex-spouse agrees to the change from an opposite-sex marriage to a same-sex one. The trans person can lose out quite considerably in entitlements and personal wellbeing during this time. " (continues)

"What of the spouses? Well, in an admittedly non-scientific poll of 18 spouses, not one supported the veto. Only one wanted some kind of say in their partner’s gender recognition process. Typically, these were supportive spouses who had stayed with their trans partners. Most trans people agree that spouses should be informed of a gender recognition application. Indeed, that was the outcome of a consultation with civil servants. But there’s a vast difference between “informing” and “requiring consent from”. (continues)

Helen Belcher is one of the founders of Trans Media Watch and also sits on the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity. She runs a software company in her spare time."

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-wont-have-truly-equal-marriage-until-we-get-rid-spousal-veto

Since the article was written in 2014, Helen Belcher has also had influential roles within Stonewall & Liberal Demcrats.

Stonewall Trans Advisory Group:
"Helen Belcher
Helen has been campaigning on LGBT rights for over a decade, working on sector funding and same-sex marriage as well as various trans issues. She fought Chippenham for the Liberal Democrats in the 2017 General Election, retaining 2nd place, and has been re-selected to fight the seat at the next General Election. She has been called one of the rising stars of the party, and works with many MPs and peers. As well as being a member of STAG, she is the Chair of Consortium, a charity working with LGBT charities, is the secretary of the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity, and is one of the founders of Trans Media Watch – on whose behalf she gave evidence to both the Leveson Inquiry on press standards in 2012, and a parliamentary inquiry into trans equality in 2015. She owns a growing software company which she has built up from scratch, has been happily married for 25 years and has two adult children of whom she is inordinately proud."
www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

It's so easily disprovable, I don't get it.

I think they expect/hope that people will just see them as the expert and defer to their view, thus vote against the veto because bigot. Rather than looking into the topic at all, even slightly.

And tbf, many probably would just do that..hats the state of things today.

The trans person can lose out quite considerably in entitlements and personal wellbeing during this time. " (continues)

What entitlements??

I wondered that too.

Its not an 'entitlement' to unilaterally turn their heterosexual marriage into a same sex one nor prevent their spouse from exiting.

MakeMoreNoise article explains:

"This is why this section of the GRA would more accurately be called the Spousal Exit Clause rather than the Spousal Veto.

As well as not being a veto, it doesn’t even prevent transition. The transitioning spouse (usually the husband) is free to do what he wants, wear what he wants and call himself what he wants. He just can’t change his birth certificate.

Many women cannot get divorce due to religious or cultural reasons so this provision enables them to have an escape route from the marriage. Even when women can divorce, without the consent of their husband it can take five years." (continues)

Tinsel does 'entitlements' refer in any way do you think to the separation of finance and assets that happens as the spouse requests annulling/dissolution of marriage?

Transition is an expensive business, and a dissolved marriage usually means a woman trying to financially set up alone supporting the children, so fair division of assets is important. To not have to wait in limbo for potentially months to years trying to get a divorce while the wife's fair share of the joint assets are unprotected seems important.

It's so easily disprovable, I don't get it.
And why would they want to force women into a same-sex marriage? What's the point? It just seems like spite.

As somebody pointed out here a couple of weeks ago, (possibly @CharlieParley ?) it stands in the way of self ID and therefore has to go. They are deliberately smearing trans widows to achieve this. Where is the evidence that it has ever been used abusively?

With regards to "entitlements" I can only think it must mean things that only people of the acquired gender are entitled to (I can only think that women used to have an earlier pension age, but not sure if this still applies to anyone?)

So they're not actually losing out on anything? Just something about their well-being? Which is clearly far more important than any other person's.

What utter rot this is.

They are deliberately smearing trans widows to achieve this. Where is the evidence that it has ever been used abusively?

Sept 2019 NewStatesman article describing how LibDem's were persuaded to adopt the policy:
(extract)
"The Liberal Democrats have today made it their party policy to remove the controversial spousal veto, a clause in the Gender Recognition Act that allows a trans person’s spouse to block their partner’s gender recognition.

Under current legislation, trans people who are already married need the written consent of their partner in order to have their gender recognised in law, due to a continued legal distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages. This means a trans person cannot gain gender recognition until either their spouse consents, or they get a divorce.

In a moving debate at the party’s conference this morning, Joanna Belcher, the wife of Helen Belcher, the Liberal Democrat’s prospective parliamentary candidate in Chippenham, told the conference about her own experience of the spousal veto during her wife’s transition.

“Sixteen years ago I was living with a depressed husband who had recently stood over a railway bridge and seriously contemplated jumping. We had two young children,” she told the room.

“We were both trying to work out the ramifications of the realisation that she needed to live her life openly as a woman. It became clear that in order for my spouse to change her legal gender, and for us to remain in our marriage, I would be asked to sign a consent form.

“I didn’t want to sign anything that said this was what I was choosing. I was supporting my other half, while trying to hold myself and our family together, but it wasn’t my choice.

“It wasn’t my choice and I knew this had to happen, that a second female parent was way better for our kids than a dead male parent. But shouldn’t have been my decision to make. This was a burden I didn’t want. Only my other half knew who she truly was.”

Belcher added that the law as it stands allows spouses to “use this veto as a weapon to hurt their exes and prevent them from moving on in their lives”.

Layla Moran MP said: “You shouldn’t be defined by anyone else other than you. That’s what makes the spousal veto such an injustice. The fact is your identity has nothing to do with anything else. No spouse should be able to veto who you are.” (continues)
www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/liberal-democrats-decide-remove-controversial-trans-spousal-veto

So they're not actually losing out on anything?

They're losing out on a new birth certificate and on getting their own way.

I find Joanne Belcher's argument wholly unconvincing and probably disingenuous.

"I won't sign it because I shouldn't have to sign it."

Good for you for not signing, Joanna. And if you lurk here, solidarity.

(I wish you wouldn't argue for other trans widows rights to be taken away, but given your circumstances I endeavour not to judge).