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

The position of a trans person who cannot get a GRC is harmful. The position of the spouse who is how legally in a different type of marriage (gay/straight) from the one they entered into is unsatisfactory.

I think the contrast between 'harmful' and 'unsatisfactory' in this paragraph betrays a rather shallow grasp on the issues faced by transwidows, tbh.

@twelvecolourfulbirds I don’t disagree that the breakup of a marriage will in a lot of cases result in someone (if not both parties) feeling extremely hurt and distressed; but I am not sure how the spousal veto helps the spouse with these, other than giving them a legal way to hurt their partner. The spousal veto does not prevent the trans person transitioning and from their spouse potentially feeling all the things you have listed.

I’d also be very worried about making law based on whose feelings have most been hurt in a situation and am not sure how that would work or how it would lead to certainty about the law, if judges were liable to rule based on who presented in court as being more upset.

I’m not a card-carrying Lib Dem either, but they do have my vote as I’m in an area where they are the main opposition to the Tories.

@juells I am genuinely new here – long time lurker, but this is my first post. I’m not someone who has name changed if that is what you are thinking.

@theprodigalkittensreturn Would you elaborate further? As I said above, I can see that the spouse could be upset by being in a marriage of a different sexuality, but I can’t see that this prejudices them legally in any way whereas the spousal veto does prevent the trans person getting their GRC.

@Anlaf Hi back – I don’t know if you can change birth certificate with an interim GRC. I agree with you that the EA2010 doesn’t require a GRC, so fair enough to discount that, but would still say that the person who has transitioned is left without legal protections if they cannot get the GRC for potentially some considerable time.

I’m not in LD politics, but am quite flattered that you think I am. My post focused on marriage because we now have marriage equality and it would therefore not surprise me if civil partnerships because less frequent in the next few decades. Assuming this mostly does apply to women married to trans women, I can’t see any equalities impact because from a legal standpoint they have the same rights – the spouse is still a married women – and I would be worried about bringing anything into law which implied that a gay marriage was less valid than a straight marriage.

@SlipperyLizard Actually, I think you’ve nailed my feelings on this. The position of a trans person who cannot get a GRC is harmful. The position of the spouse who is how legally in a different type of marriage (gay/straight) from the one they entered into is unsatisfactory. I’d have thought ideally we want no fault divorce to solve this, and then it is up to the parties to resolve things to suit them.

But you are correct, Fraggling, in that an unreasonable behaviour petition does fall if the other party doesn't agree to it.

But it's OK for the libdems to campaign to change an existing law, on the same basis?

Jeez, no I didn't say that!

I'd like us to make sure, if we campaign for the retention of the spousal veto, that we're not accidentally campaigning for something that allows the husband to get out of his financial responsibilities by voiding the marriage.

And I wasn't giving a definite position on unreasonable behaviour, I'm not a solicitor. It was more of a question.

It's not hard to make a petition for unreasonable behaviour based on how most transitioners carry on, even putting aside the fact of the transition itself (speaking from experience).

Yes we probably need to oppose the Lib Dem's stance but let's make sure we've considered it properly.

'I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.'

But it's OK for the libdems to campaign to change an existing law, on the same basis?

Did you see the link about unreasonable behaviour BTW I'm afraid your idea that unreasonableness is in the eye of the recipient is not correct.

But the libdems are campaigning to remove something when it's not clear what the knock on will be.

Yes. We should give it more thought than them.

What is the current spousal veto consent clause for? What does it protect? And what is the impact of removing it, on all those involved?

55. The GEO explained to us as follows the Government’s position on the spousal consent provision:

[The requirement for consent] does not mean anyone will have a right to prevent their wife or husband obtaining a legal gender change; simply that they will be allowed to decide whether they want their marriage to continue before gender recognition is granted. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and it is right that both spouses should have an equal say in their future when there is a fundamental change […] The Ministry of Justice has committed to monitor issues arising from the spousal declaration of consent. Since the gender recognition provisions of the 2013 Act were only introduced in December 2014, there is not yet enough evidence to review the impact of these changes.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39006.htm
(Published in 2016)

'I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.'

But the libdems are campaigning to remove something when it's not clear what the knock on will be.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/divorce-married-woman-uk-supreme-court-husband-loveless-woman-supreme-court-tini-owens-hugh-a8462696.html

She was told she had to wait 5 years.

Im not sure that's true a woman was recently prevented divorcing her husband by the courts as they didn't find him unreasonable enough...

Wasn't there going to be some new legislation about no fault divorce

I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.

If anybody knows how we can find out if a marriage dissolved with the veto removes the transitioning partner's financial obligation, then I'd be keen to hear it.

Noted, Tinsel.
IANAL
My understanding is that financial obligation may only be removed if the marriage is void as opposed to voidable, and gender reassignment is grounds for the latter.

Casting my mind back to my legal studies, I think "unreasonable behaviour" is based on what the petitioner found unreasonable (and therefore made it intolerable to live with the respondent), not what others might consider to be unreasonable.

Transitioners always behave so badly that it's not hard to find examples of their unreasonable behaviour that don't directly relate to the change of sex.

tinsel I agree - there needs to be a divorce lawyer thinking about this and writing an assessment. Any out there?

Just concerned that we should not lose sight of the fact that legislative changes in any field have a knock on impact on how courts make decisions about what is and isn’t reasonable in related fields.

I think the effect of this on women is potentially even worse than has been suggested, isn’t it?

If the spousal consent requirement is removed, a woman will will need to rely on being able to divorce the newly minted trans woman. But on what ground? If unreasonableness, would this not be affected by removal of the spousal consent requirement? (In that the very fact of removing the requirement sends a strong message that transition is a normal part of life, perfectly reasonable, etc.)

A court will make its decision about unreasonableness in the context of an individual case, having regard to what is generally considered unreasonable- and this change would affect that assessment. A woman would be trapped in a ‘lesbian’ marriage she’d never entered into, unless she could show some aspect of unreasonable behaviour that was nothing to do with transition.

Obviously this ties in with other issues around reform of divorce law. But what I’m getting at is that without a more wide ranging reform, removing the spousal veto could also make it impossible to divorce a transitioned person on the ground of unreasonableness- so forcing a woman, against her will, to remain in a marrriage with a person who now claims to be a woman.

Which financially would be great for the transitioned person - no pesky divorce settlement!

I don’t think we should assume the LDs won’t ever be in a position to implement this. A hung Parliament where a Labour relies on LD support is quite likely, I would have thought. We also should not underestimate men’s determination to avoid being ‘dragged down’ by having to make adequate financial provision for families on divorce.

No I mean their financial obligation to the wife, not the children.

It probably doesn't since they are still the biological parent; but most men get away with not paying child support anyway, and that pressure must be removed for women to be able to make a decision.

Sorry I misread your post Juells and then pressed send too soon.

I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.

If anybody knows how we can find out if a marriage dissolved with the veto removes the transitioning partner's financial obligation, then I'd be keen to hear it.

Even if it means they don't have any financial obligation to you,

I suppose I feel a bit ambivalent about it because there seems to be so much pressure on (in particular) wives, with so many TV programmes showing a desperately smiling supportive wife, with societal pressure to pretend that everything is all hunky dory. If the marriage is automatically dissolved unless otherwise stated by both parties, at least it removes the pressure to apply for divorce, and be the bad un-supportive partner.

I think it's a bit of a non issue. I agree with the sentiment you're expressing, but when I was in that position I filed for divorce on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.

That was the true situation, and there was no ambiguity about his financial obligations.

As said earlier in the thread, the veto had to be included in the GRC legislation as same sex marriage was not legal at the time. That's now not the case.

What do you think would work, TinselAngel? To my mind, the person who is having their circumstances changed (the spouse) should be the one whose wellbeing is taken into account, rather than the person who is choosing to change the contract entered into.

I'm starting to feel that both sides are virtue signalling on this without any actual understanding of its application in real life.

It's a key issue though, and is why I'm ambivalent about the spousal veto. Nobody seems to know the answer to it. Getting rid of it could actually improve the financial position of the wife.

As I say, I suspect the veto has possibly never been used.

It's a matter of principle for the TRA's. When I've tried to google it to find more out, you get pages of articles by them saying how awful it is. Disproportionate for something never used.

(I'm repeating myself, but had the odd experience earlier of being invited onto the thread, then my comment ignored which seems about rude).