Spousal veto

Jaxhog it is presumably a special case because the GRC retrospectively changes the basis of the marriage. No other grounds for divorce rewrites history in the same way.

Spartacus I managed to get DD's passport renewed ok, despite her Father's name and "gender" having changed since the last application.

I do wonder if her Father's identity no longer existing will cause her any administrative problems going forward. Maybe there will be a situation where she will need a copy of her Dad's GRC, I'm not sure.

GRC's record what the holders name and Dec at birth were, so there is an audit trail.

Whoever came up with the lie phrase “spousal veto” really did a number.

Is there something basically abusive in forcing someone to stay in a marriage?

Ah.

I should add, that we should change the grounds for annulment to include something like concealing your sexual orientation or gender.

I am troubled by this too. While I absolutely don't think a woman should have to stay in a marriage when her DH transitions (and vice versa), I also think this is the case for anyone who finds themself in a marriage of domestic abuse, adultery or if their spouse changes their sexual orientation. But we already have a mechanism for this - divorce and annulment. I don't see why transgenderism merits being a special case.

I was just thinking about children's birth certificates or marriage certificates which have the father's name on

The GRA states the parent remains the biological parent even after they transition. this might be one reason activists want the GRA repealed.

''12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.''
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/12

To make comparison to other contracts OP;

Most people take out a broadband contract at a set price for a fixed time. Do you agree that if the supplier unilaterally varies the terms of the contract by upping the price mid-way, or by reducing your bandwidth, that the contract is void and you can leave (as the law says)? Or should they be able to double the price and hold you to the contract?

Do you think that if you order a Ferrari for £350,000 the supplier should be able to substitute a Fiat instead for the same price, because its still a car with four wheels?

Should your employer be able to suddenly half your wages without your consent? Or should the employee be allowed to sue for breach of contract?

Reasonable people know the above examples are unfair and one-sided, and so if consumers, employees, tenants etc have this kind of legal protection against unfair terms and the abuse of power in a relationship, how on earth can it be right that different principles be applied to marriage and a woman (or man) be forced to be bound to a contract that can be so fundamentally altered without consent by one party.

Especially a contract that she will be forced to live out in real life, that has financial impacts but also social and practical ones. It is profoundly unfair and not compatible with a democratic society.

No fault divorce is not good solution for those who cannot get divorced. In addition, no fault divorce doesn't help people get divorced any more quickly than fault divorce, because what generally slows down divorce is not the divorce itself, but the financial settlement that needs to be reached before the divorce can be granted. So to be sure that divorce occured before a GRC is granted there would be to be legislation to guarantee this and then the no fault divorce would operate in the same way as the current system. The question is whether it acceptable to require people to be in a marriage with someone who is now legally the opposite sex.

Both partners here have a choice.

It's ok to end a relationship or marriage for any reason.

If my husband transitioned then I would want the opportunity to divorce the man I married quickly, so we could both move on. I would want my personal history to say I married a man, John and I divorced him. I would not want my history to be rewritten to say I married a woman, Jane and.divorced her...implying that I had spent 20 years as a lesbian when I had not.
I would want the divorce to happen before John acquired a GRC and rewrote my life.

Even if you don't think that being trapped in a marriage for 5 years isn't that bad, or that its not a problem because you can move to Scotland; this is probably going to require a change in the law to allow a new contract to be applied retrospectively, even if one party to the contract disagrees.

If you don't want to lie and you don't want to or can't afford to be seen as transphobia, when someone asks Jane if she's married, the answer needs to be yes, who to, a woman called Trish.

Which will change facts about her and potentially scupper chances of relationships with men at work! Unless she further announces that she's bisexual?

Oh come on. Are you married? No separated but I don't want to discuss it.

Is that may different to a spouse whose partner cheated on them or did any number of other things that ends the marriage? Why is it any business if the people that you work with?

How on earth am I emotionally blackmailing anyone?

By your insistence on using the word "veto".

I'm sorry but I don't understand the law, certainly not as it's being represented here anyway and given that there seem to be so many different opinions here I don't think others understand it either

No you clearly don't understand it but there are plenty on here who do.

The "veto" is not a veto. It gives the spouse who does not want to have her or his status changed the opportunity to get out of the marriage without proving fault or a lengthy separation. In that period the transitioner gets an interim grc which becomes a full grc when the divorce completes.

If you're married or in a civil partnership

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.

Contact the administrative team at the Gender Recognition Panel if either you or your spouse change your mind about staying married during the application process.

It does if they refuse to get divorced,

No. It does if they want a GRC and the spousal veto is abolished.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the law

Anybody can go and read the Gender Recognition Act, and many, like Hooves would benefit from doing so.

Them deciding they are gay does not alter the status of their spouse. Them deciding they are the other sex, does.

It does if they refuse to get divorced, refuse to leave the marital home etc. The injured party is then married to a gay spouse, unable to remarry, have children whilst married.

Sorry bold fail.

'I guess I also struggle to accept that someone's sexuality is changed because of someone else's identity change '

Well it depends if you want to lie to people and/ or whether you want to be accused of transphobia.

If you don't want to lie and you don't want to or can't afford to be seen as transphobia, when someone asks Jane if she's married, the answer needs to be yes, who to, a woman called Trish.

Which will change facts about her and potentially scupper chances of relationships with men at work! Unless she further announces that she's bisexual?

I mean come on it course it affects the spouse!

There isn't some huge injustice they're seeking to address - the spousal exit clause stands in the way of self-id. So it has to go.

This is an excellent point CharlieParley, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I could imagine confusion but fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

Biologically, no. Legally, yes.

If a partner decides after many years of marriage that they are indeed gay and no longer wish to.live as husband and wife

Them deciding they are gay does not alter the status of their spouse. Them deciding they are the other sex, does.

What about other official documents eg. If they witnessed their child’s marriage, or someone’s will?