Spousal veto

I was going to write a longer post but then saw this...

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

YES OP, yes. We have divorce in this country. We also have laws about consent.

I guess I also struggle to accept that someone's sexuality is changed because of someone else's identity change . I could imagine confusion but fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

Well exactly. The wife's sexual orientation has not changed just because her husband wants to transition and call himself a lesbian, so why should the wife be forced to accept a homosexual marriage when that for her would be a LIE.

fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

But it does if they transition while still married under the current thinking that you can change your sex on legal documents. Why do you think this should have no effect on the non transitioning partners life? It may certainly not effect their own sexuality for future relationships, or their own future gender identity, but it means that within this marriage their identity has been forceably changed.

Just stop this emotional blackmail now. It is not a veto. You are either deliberately lying or have failed to understand the law; in either case not a good look.

How on earth am I emotionally blackmailing anyone?

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.

I cannot believe that the law says that you have to remain in a marriage that you want to leave. Anyone can divorce can't they? The amount of time it takes depends on whether both parties agree but isn't that the case for divorce on any grounds?

If a partner decides after many years of marriage that they are indeed gay and no longer wish to.live as husband and wife the partner can't veto that can they? If the injured party choose to divorce the other partner can refuse and presumably the divorce will take 5 years rather than 2. Is that much different to this?

Do some people not read the news much or something?

This was a very well reported case and was talked about on the boards possibly the main ones too. If have thought people with an interest in women's rights would have clocked it. It was headline.

Sorry, slightly off topic but just thought, if GRC are applied retrospectively (so change the marriage certificate) then what happens to their children’s birth certificates?

Midget see the link I just posted

The court agreed it was awful for the woman but had to apply the law

If no fault then you have to wait 5 years see this recent case that was all over the news

The party wanting the divorce could move to Scotland and apply after 2 years separation.

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did. You would still be in a heterosexual relationship, ( homogender ) but just one branded otherwise because of an idiotic ideology.

I have read your thread but I am struggling to understand why you think women should be trapped in a marriage they did not sign up to, or why you are calling straight women homophobic for not wanting to be in a lesbian relationship.

This is a problem where the legal state and reality are not the same thing.

They excused it in the original hearing because it would only involve about 5000 individuals.

So we have a confused mess where one wins over the other in different situations whether they are equivalent or not.

If the law wins out, does that mean totalitarism?

Why have the veto rather than having say transition as valid grounds for Divorce?

Are you actually reading the responses?

IT
IS
NOT
A
VETO

It's nothing more than a deferral. You cant do X until Y.

midge

I have read through this thread and I too feel that you are missing the ‘forced’ change of identity of the non-transitioning spouse.

Do you not see that having another person change your own identity (in this instance being married to someone the same sex) is abusive?

To me, it isn’t about being homosexual or not. It is about having another person legally force any change to your own identity to accommodate their own change of identity. To me, it is that simple.

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

Is that a serious question? Of course it's abusive

'If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans can I not say in that case I want a divorce?'

If no fault then you have to wait 5 years see this recent case that was all over the news

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/tini-owens-trapped-loveless-marriage-judges-refuse-divorce

a cross party group want to remove your right to exit the marriage, under the guise of removing the spousal veto.

How can they force 2 people to remain married? They can't be doing that.

Itwould remove the risk of coercion if transitioning was automatic grounds for divorce, then a statutory separation and cooling off period, then people could remarry if they choose to

There is no need for it to be automatic. If both parties are OK they need do nothing. If the non- transitioner isn't then a very simple , "sorry, I'm out" declaration should be enough to release that person.

can I not say in that case I want a divorce? No o e is forcing me to stay married to him are they?
You can go for divorce if you want to, no one is forcing you to take the annulment route.

It's funny how people are so worked up about women's right to have their marriage annulled before their husband gets a GRC. The fact that men can obtain a new birth certificate with a different name and gender is potentially far more problematic (see e.g. DBS checks), but I'm not seeing any politicians wringing their hands over that.

Transisition in itself isn't abuse?

Isn't it? Who says so? I'm afraid I disagree. It's never going to happen but I'm sorry if my husband announced he had been lying to me and my son all these years and was really a woman I would want nothing more to do with him.

It would remove the risk of coercion if transitioning was automatic grounds for divorce, then a statutory separation and cooling off period, then people could remarry if they choose to.

I dont have veto over anything else that he might decide to change about the marriage so why this?

Just stop this emotional blackmail now. It is not a veto. You are either deliberately lying or have failed to understand the law; in either case not a good look.

So far as changing anything I married a man. I did not and never would marry a woman. My husband has no right to change that.