Spousal veto

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

People can opt for divorce instead, or stay married.

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

Agreed. Those that can get divorced and feel it is more suitable for their circumstances, do.

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

If I were married to a man for 20 years I wouldn't want to make it as if the whole thing had never happened at all. That would feel really awful

the idea of introducing some kind of mandatory notification process is unrealistic

I agree. If there's no attempt to make sure the notification has been received before proceeding, then it serves no purpose. If there is a provision that the spouse has to acknowledge receipt of the notification it's similar to asking for consent, so wouldn't be tolerated by the TRA's.

Im struggling really to see why having a partner who is trans is so much worse than other reasons for marriages ending, such that it requires a special divorce process.

This has been explained repeatedly on the thread. You are being obtuse.

It's not that it's worse, it's that it fundamentally changes the marriage contract. Transitioning is not even a ground for divorce, it's a ground for annulment.

There is no waiting period for citing unreasonable behaviour or adultery as a ground for divorce. In fact for either of these you must apply within 6 months of discovering adultery/the most recent incident of unreasonable behaviour you intend to rely on. If your spouse agrees they are being a shit or has been unfaithful it can be just as quick as an annulment. It's just that spouses don't tend to agree so it goes to court to decide.

Sorting out finances and child arrangements is an essential part of any divorce or annulment, regardless of grounds. Sometimes this takes a long time. It is what it is.

I'm also confused by people saying that ending this process (that op calls a veto but isn't) will affect women who can't get divorced. What is meant by this? From reading this thread the idea of this "veto" is simply that the partner can only get an interim GRC until.the divorce is finalised. Is that correct? So how would that affect a woman who can't get divorced? Her DH could still transition but could only get an interim GRC? Is that right? So she would remain married, her partner could continue with the transition but couldn't get a GRC?

She gets an annulment. An interim GRC is grounds for annulment, not divorce. If neither party applies for annulment within 6 months of the interim GRC being granted then it lapses and the transing spouse has to reapply.

Changing the nature of the marriage not only without spousal consent, but also without their knowledge is definitely being considered.

Yes, I don't think the activists will settle for anything less. Besides, the idea of introducing some kind of mandatory notification process is unrealistic. The spousal consent clause currently serves that very purpose. I don't understand why people who are otherwise against self-id have such a problem with it?

Im struggling really to see why having a partner who is trans is so much worse than other reasons for marriages ending, such that it requires a special divorce process

Can you not understand the simple concept of a contract being a mutual agreement which one party cannot change unilaterally? A grc fundamentally changes that.

This has been explained by several posters I'm beginning to get a little tired of your wide-eyed lack of comprehension. I'm not even particularly gender critical but I understand it.

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.”

Legal documents between more than 1 party shouldn't be allowed to be unilaterally changed by one of them. It is against all precedent, and a not a good precedent to set

Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

Baroness Barker's Bill in the HOL last year proposed applicants for a GRC would have to provide their spouse's address (and IIRC) sign a declaration that the address was correct, so that the spouse could then be informed.

So replacing the right to exit the marriage, with the right to be informed an application for a GRC has been made.

This thread is making me furious.

But a partner who is trans might not get a GRC. So how would this rule help their spouse?

Because they get an interim GRC which is grounds for annulment.

Just because a law doesn't help everybody is not a reason for getting rid of it.

Correction, the consultations were in 2018, not last year.

I think the answer is to have quick, no fault divorce for everyone. I can't see the argument for only one group to have special treatment.

OK when you've started your campaign let us know, and we'll sign up.

I think it's more that you won't see the argument than that you can't. God knows it's been explained enough times.

I don't lol often, but I think I might allow myself a rare lol, at the thought that women in this hellish situation are getting "special treatment".

lol

As I presume you must be against annulment per se, rather than just in these circumstances (as it risks women getting "special treatment") I presume you will also be campaigning for the other reasons for annulment to be abolished too?

ie

•	it was not consummated - you have not had sexual intercourse with the person you married since the wedding (does not apply for same sex couples)
•	you did not properly consent to the marriage - for example you were forced into it
•	the other person had a sexually transmitted disease (STD) when you got married
•	your spouse was pregnant by someone else when you got married

Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

In one of the consultations last year (I think it was the Scottish one), they asked about whether consent should have to be obtained from the non-transitioning spouse, and then a further question, that if consent wasn't required, whether the non-transitioning spouse should be informed about their spouse's transition.

Changing the nature of the marriage not only without spousal consent, but also without their knowledge is definitely being considered.

I don't understand why the marriage certificate is changed at all tbh. At the time the marriage happened it was between person X and y. If y later decides to become z they weren't at the time of the marriage so why is it changed?

If I change my name by deed poll after marriage my marriage certificate still shows my name at the time of the marriage doesn't it, so why is it changed in this case?

The difference is that the original marriage cert is altered with this, which is non trivial.

Legal documents between more than 1 party shouldn't be allowed to be unilaterally changed by one of them. It is against all precedent, and a not a good precedent to set.

Okay, Hooves— agreed: fight for no-fault divorce.

In the meantime — why remove a provision that largely benefits women?

Or are you arguing that since OTHER women often find themselves trapped in marriage where circumstances have changed, EVERY woman should therefore be trapped in marriage?

But a partner who is trans might not get a GRC. So how would this rule help their spouse? They would still be married to a partner who is presenting as the opposite sex, all practical problems the same, just that their partner wouldn't legally have changed identity?

I think the answer is to have quick, no fault divorce for everyone. I can't see the argument for only one group to have special treatment.

So why should being married to a partner that is transitioning be treated more favourably in divorce than an abusive partner?

FFS Hooves, that's not a gotcha.

It has been carefully explained to you many times on this thread, that it's because one partner getting a GRC fundamentally alters the terms of the marriage.

How much campaigning do you do for abused women to be allowed quickie divorces I wonder given you think it is so important? I'll guess none.

Just because one cohort of women unjustly might struggle to get out of a marriage doesn't mean we have to change the law to level down, so it's equally difficult for all women.

And that's before we even go into how many relationships with late transitioners are also abusive (see transwidows threads- nearly 3000 posts).

I think what they need to do is

Introduce quick no fault divorce
Spouse needs to be aware of this, mechanism could be that marriage cert not to be amended without agreement of spouse (they need to either agree to have the cert changed or file for divorce, so it's not to stop transition but make sure spouse understands options, many people won't be up to speed)
Would that work

A lot of spouses may well not be aware of what it all means, or their options. It would all happen without them even being aware? Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

There's no special provision for speeding divorce up in these circumstances. It could still take 5 years.

So why should being married to a partner that is transitioning be treated more favourably in divorce than an abusive partner?

But say your spouse commits adultery. You still have to go through the divorce process and they have to be willing to admit adultery. What if they don't? A friend of mine has been trying to divorce on the grounds of adultery for 2 years but he's being an arse about the financial settlement so it's nowhere near being sorted.

Im struggling really to see why having a partner who is trans is so much worse than other reasons for marriages ending, such that it requires a special divorce process.

I'm also confused by people saying that ending this process (that op calls a veto but isn't) will affect women who can't get divorced. What is meant by this? From reading this thread the idea of this "veto" is simply that the partner can only get an interim GRC until.the divorce is finalised. Is that correct? So how would that affect a woman who can't get divorced? Her DH could still transition but could only get an interim GRC? Is that right? So she would remain married, her partner could continue with the transition but couldn't get a GRC?

If there's abuse in the relationship – and evidence to support that – then a divorce can be obtained fairly quickly

No it can't. There's no special provision for speeding divorce up in these circumstances. It could still take 5 years.

And the unreasonable behaviour petition can be contested. (Maybe I should get this printed on a T-shirt so I don't have to keep repeating it?)

Didn’t you read the earlier post from PencilsinSpace?:

“ Current grounds for divorce (England and Wales):

1. Adultery
2. Unreasonable Behaviour
3. Desertion
4. 2 years separation with spouse's consent
5. 5 years separation without spouse's consent

So without the exit clause a spouse has to either cite unreasonable behaviour or wait up to 5 years before she can even file for divorce, let alone tie up all the loose ends.”

I know it's adultery. The divorce process still takes time though doesn't it?