Spousal veto

Ffs. Tinsel's question wasn't about sex & gender identity.

They appear to have deleted it Tinsel. Fucking hell

Here is the question I have posted on the web chat thread. I hope it isn't deleted.

Hi Jess.

Thank you for being a long term campaigner for women who have suffered domestic abuse.

How do you reconcile this with your recently stated position on Twitter that the Spousal Exit Clause (often misnamed as the Spousal Veto) in the Gender Recognition Act is "awful"?
This clause exists purely to enable spouses to exit a marriage before the terms of it entirely change.

Would you be willing to discuss this issue further with women who have been in this position (trans widows)?

I was good and left the spousal veto question for Tinsel!

Webchat with Jess Phillips

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3797731-Webchat-with-Labour-leadership-contender-Jess-Phillips-MP-on-Monday-January-20-at-1pm

Well, religious laws do exist for some groups within the UK otherwise Sharia councils would not exist! So it is perfectly valid to talk of religious laws in the UK in the context of Islamic law, which I did.

www.islamic-sharia.org/services/

The point is obviously that the people marrying and divorcing under such laws are not protected by civil laws unless the marriage is registered and they also have a civil law divorce, but it does not mean such religious marriages and divorces do not exist.

Tigerwhat you say is true for divorce but not marriage. Double checked - Church of England and Church in Wales you marry under ecclesiastical law and this is recognised by civil law

The important point is recognised by the civil law These ceremonies need that recognition to make them valid , legal marriages.

Tiger what you say is true for divorce but not marriage. Double checked - Church of England and Church in Wales you marry under ecclesiastical law and this is recognised by civil law. (Jews and Quakers celebrant are automatically registrars, other religions need to register as a registrar). In these churches, for example, you do not need to give notice at the register office but instead have the Banns read.

my understanding is that religious and civil law are entirely separate - so a civil annulment would have no bearing on the status of the parties in terms of their religion if they had had a religious marriage

It irritates me immensely to hear talk of "religious law" in the context of the UK. All marriages in the UK require to comply with the requirements of the civil law to be valid.

All divorces require to be done under civil law. A marriage can , in limited circumstances be annulled under civil law.
An annulment applying "religious law" does
not annul a marriage.

Equally you are no longer married after a divorce no matter what your priest or your own conscience is telling you.

It's no more than a form of politeness to talk about religious customs as "religious law".

^in England^

my understanding is that religious and civil law are entirely separate

Not entirely. As I understand it in most religions (and many Christian denominations) couples either need a civil wedding or, more commonly, the celebrant is also registered as a civil registrar. But if you get married in the church of England or Catholic Church (and I vaguely remember Jewish and Quakers) then you are married under church law but this is recognised by civilian law.

This has been a great thread for clarifying loads of issues.

Feminazgul cross post - yes, the same is true of women in Islamic marriages.

bd67th my understanding is that religious and civil law are entirely separate - so a civil annulment would have no bearing on the status of the parties in terms of their religion if they had had a religious marriage.

Does a civil annulment guarantee that a religious one would follow?

Nothing to do with trans issues, but there are Jewish women trapped in marriages with husbands who have left them as they arent divorced under religious law.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document)

FFS, my employer isn't allowed to impose new terms on me without me signing to them, and refusal to sign constitutes my resignation. Whilst I would be working my notice, the new terms would not apply to me because I did not agree to them. That's in a job, which is much less of a life-changing commitment than a marriage is.

Yes. Same for tenancies and landlords increasing the rent. They can't just do it without your agreement, even if not agreeing means they just serve a S21 notice and evict you.

Even in areas where the law has no teeth to protect vulnerable parties, the basic principles and concepts of what a contract is are upheld.

The sole purpose of an interim GRC is to provide grounds to end the marriage.

I am wondering. Shouldn’t the consent be the other way round; you should have to give consent for the marriage to continue when a spouse gets a GRC. The default should be a GRC brings a marriage to its end (and as such finances and children need to be sorted first). Afterall the person who signed the marriage certificate ceases to exist.

This is pretty much what happens.

As part of their application, a married GRC applicant must send in their spouse's signed consent for the marriage to continue. Otherwise they are only given an interim GRC and must bring the marriage to its end, including sorting out finances and child arrangements, before a full certificate is issued.

Before same sex marriage you had to get the marriage annulled or get divorced before you could get a GRC

Yes and this was still the case up until literally yesterday in Northern Ireland.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51086276

It probably still is the case, technically, until the GRA amendments go through.

Isn't it strange how little we have heard about this compared with the narrative of nasty mean transwidows 'vetoing' their husbands' transition?

There doesn't seem to have been much press at all about equal marriage going through in NI. It's almost as if LGB don't really matter these days.

Regardless of how the marriage is ended, it should be swift.

Absolutely this. Also it should remain a separate, no-fault, no-questions-asked ground, whether for annulment or divorce.

Part of the Equality Act is the Public Sector Equality Duty:

149 Public sector equality duty

(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

If the spousal exit clause is removed then this takes away a no-fault ground for ending the marriage and instead pushes spouses towards citing unreasonable behaviour. This flies in the face of the PSED. This fosters bad relations between people with the PC of gender reassignment and those who don't share it (their spouses).

Frequently there is actual unreasonable behaviour but most people seeking a divorce just want it over quickly with a minimum of drama and acrimony, especially if they have children.

I would say that's more logical, yes.

I am wondering. Shouldn’t the consent be the other way round; you should have to give consent for the marriage to continue when a spouse gets a GRC. The default should be a GRC brings a marriage to its end (and as such finances and children need to be sorted first). Afterall the person who signed the marriage certificate ceases to exist.

Someone upthread said that religious annulment can be granted after a civil divorce, implying that civil annulment isn't the same as religious annulment. Does a civil annulment guarantee that a religious one would follow?

Regardless of how the marriage is ended, it should be swift. The non-transitioning spouse (NTS) married a person of one sex who now seeks to retroactively alter the marriage agreement by changing legal sex and pushing the NTS into a different marriage than what the NTS agreed to. The NTS should be presumed to disagree with that unilateral change of terms and should have to give explicit consent before terms are altered or else have the marriage ended before the transitioning spouse changes legal sex.

FFS, my employer isn't allowed to impose new terms on me without me signing to them, and refusal to sign constitutes my resignation. Whilst I would be working my notice, the new terms would not apply to me because I did not agree to them. That's in a job, which is much less of a life-changing commitment than a marriage is.

In those cases I'm suggesting annulment can be the only option.

Tinsel so in those cases are you suggesting that annulment is preferable to divorce? I don't know enough about it, clearly!