Spousal veto

“ Could you not make the same argument for people in abusive marriages though?”
That comes under Unreasonable Behaviour.

“Or partners who have been cheated on?”
That’s Adultery.

If there's abuse in the relationship – and evidence to support that – then a divorce can be obtained fairly quickly. It would involve going to court, though, and the spousal veto can avoid cost and the delays.

Hooves

Yes, you could. Which is an argument for no-fault divorce. I think it would be marvelous to start a thread about the need for that.

This discussion is specifically about one provision of the law largely benefiting women, one which Jess Phillips is seeking to remove.

BickerinBrattle

Could you not make the same argument for people in abusive marriages though? I'm sure they would like to be able to divorce quickly. Or partners who have been cheated on?

BickerinBrattle, you're right – as soon as you take all the traditional expectations and wifely 'stand by your man' stuff out of the equation it looks very different.

Only one thing. In the lesbian circles I frequent the non-transitioning lesbian would would be welcome. Nothing about her has changed, she is still a lesbian. Some lesbian groups will also allow transmen but that's more complicated and tends to split groups.

Similarly, before equal marriage it was a requirement to end the marriage before a full GRC could be issued. That's the reason this clause is there in the first place - they weren't actually thinking of women and our rights!

True, although its function as a way to give both spouses equal say in the future of their marriage has been recognised more recently:

The Women and Equalities report on Transgender Equality noted the following on Spousal consent:

“Since the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, marriage in the law of England and Wales takes the form of a contract between two people of different sexes or two people of the same sex. Therefore, the law as it currently stands requires both parties to agree to the status of a marriage being changed.

Consequently, where one party transitions, the non-trans party must give their consent to the change of marriage status before a full GRC can be issued. If such consent is withheld, the marriage must be dissolved by divorce or annulled before a full GRC can be issued. In this circumstance, an interim GRC can be issued, on the basis of which either party to the marriage can apply to have it annulled.”

In its submission to the report, the Government Equalities Office said:

“[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.”

womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

Let’s reverse the situation.

I was quite close to a married lesbian couple where one of the partners went through transition. The spouse who did not transition suddenly found herself sleeping with a person without breasts and covered in chest hair, something she was not in any way attracted to and something that in fact created revulsion in her because — she was lesbian, ie not attracted to males.

She found herself in a marriage to someone who was, because of the tremendous effects of male levels of testosterone on females, suddenly much more volatile and aggressive.

She found herself, as part of a couple, no longer welcomed in the lesbian events she and her partner had long attended because according to the ideology, she and her partner were now a heterosexual couple.

Her partner’s transition fundamentally altered her entire life — in her bed, inside the walls of her house, and externally in her community.

Should she not be able to end that marriage before her partner so radically alters the very foundation of that marriage?

Should she actually have to endure this alteration and loss for 2 or 5 years?

Good to know that there is a financial settlement on annulment. Presumably it works in the same way as divorce, whereby the finances have to be agreed before the annulment can go through?

Looks like you can apply for a financial order at the same time as an annulment:

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688091/d8n-notes-eng.pdf

Including not inviting

For people who are naturally quite open it would be hard to just be all clammy about it. Everyone is different, try to remember.

At my work people talk about their families inviting exes loads! Esp if they have kids with them, it's hardly unusual.

What happens about finances with annulment?

Thinking about the common situation where a woman has sacrificed career to raise kids, support spouse as main breadwinner etc

The same exit clause can be used to dissolve a civil partnership. Up until a few weeks ago this was required because a CP was only permitted between same sex couples.

Similarly, before equal marriage it was a requirement to end the marriage before a full GRC could be issued. That's the reason this clause is there in the first place - they weren't actually thinking of women and our rights!

I can't help thinking that you should just not be able to change history

The whole point of the GRA is to change history. The person gets a new birth certificate to say that they were born the opposite sex.

When you contract to marry, you specifically contract to take the other person as your lawful wedded husband (or wife). Husband and wife have very specific meanings, relating to the sex of the person. A woman cannot be a husband. A man cannot be a wife. If I have said "I take John to be my lawful wedded husband" and John is now a woman (and always has been) how can my marriage contract still be valid as the man I took to be my husband no longer exists?

Where it leaves people in civil partnerships, I don't know.

Oh crap, of course.

I wonder how much a person could manage to spend on, say, lipstick, lingerie and heels in that sort of time frame? If it was really, really important to them and crucial to the fulfilment of their desire to become their 'true self'?

Not as much as they could spend on cosmetic surgery...

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

Of course! What was I thinking?

Also the financial aspect of things. A woman being able to require half the family finances, child support etc before you can obtain a GRC? Unthinkable. Better that she's trapped in the marriage for two years or more until divorce is a possibility and then has paperwork which gives the impression she is a lesbian who was married to a woman for however many years...

I wonder how much a person could manage to spend on, say, lipstick, lingerie and heels in that sort of time frame? If it was really, really important to them and crucial to the fulfilment of their desire to become their 'true self'?

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

A wife having a say in things cannot be allowed.

The absolutely unacceptable thing is that it's not even asking for a say in other people's business. It's just asking for the consideration to sort out her own business by being able to divorce. I've been here 10 years, and it still shocks me sometimes the entitlement so many men have.

I think Charley Parley's point about spousal veto having to go because it denies the transitioner total control of the process is key. A wife having a say in things cannot be allowed.

Also the financial aspect of things. A woman being able to require half the family finances, child support etc before you can obtain a GRC? Unthinkable. Better that she's trapped in the marriage for two years or more until divorce is a possibility and then has paperwork which gives the impression she is a lesbian who was married to a woman for however many years...

So the remaining question is why some people seem to think this should not be allowed before the full GRC and legally fictional birth certificate are granted.

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

OK I've just looked it up, an interim GRC is included in the list of grounds for granting an annulment:

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

So the remaining question is why some people seem to think this should not be allowed before the full GRC and legally fictional birth certificate are granted.

No wonder this aspect does not make sense to me.

Are you saying that everyone should be comfortable with having their marriage changed to be a same sex marriage without their consent even though that does not fit with both spouses wishes?

That because the reality that the non-transitioned spouse considers themselves heterosexual and lives their life according to reality, that the legal status of having a same sex marriage should not matter to them because it is just a piece of paper. One that no longer reflects the integrity of the facts of the original marriage.

I am honestly trying to clarify your thinking.

I can't help thinking that you should just not be able to change history

Yes, I agree with that. The point is that we need gender transitioning to be allowable grounds for immediate annulment or divorce in regards to marriage or immediate dissolution in regards to a civil partnership.

All the conversation has been about the non transitioning partner exercising this, but honestly many transitioning partners probably feel they have been living a lie and I am sure at least some of them would also like the ability to end their marriage or civil partnership immediately. This does nothing but add a legal option for both the nontransitioning and the transitioning partners, that either can freely exercise.