Spousal veto

And the husband could get a GRC without the spouse's knowledge.

If the so called spousal veto is to be removed then gender transition should be one of the acceptable legal reasons for a quick divorce.
If that were done there would be no issue.

Yes there would if you're from a religion or culture where you can't get divorced, or if you do get divorced you aren't allowed to remarry etc.

The other thing that is "a bit mad" is that on getting a GRC a birth certificate can be amended so that a different sex is recorded. Even if the birth took place before the GRA came into force. So a baby born in 1975 recorded as male "becomes" female.

And in many cases, that male has married a woman and fathered children 'as a man' before he gets the urge to transition. Why the hell should he have a birth certificate that says he was born female? It's insane. Politicians (esp. those who weren't around in 2004 and had no input in the GRA) should be looking at the bigger picture instead of tinkering with individual provisions which safeguard spouses' rights.

If the so called spousal veto is to be removed then gender transition should be one of the acceptable legal reasons for a quick divorce.
If that were done there would be no issue.

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

That was the bit that was discriminatory and cruel. Couples wishing to stay married couldn't if one transitioned. But that's now been fixed. TBH the laws that should have been passed in 2004 were the same-sex marriage amendment and equalisation of pension ages. We would not have needed the GRA if Parliament had passed those.

popehilarious You could partake in any sex act bar PIV with "Fernando" and it wouldn't be adultery, regardless of "Fernando's" legal or actual sex. Hence the Bill Clinton quote: he stuck his dick in Lewinksi's mouth and a cigar in her vagina, but it wasn't adultery under English law.

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

Fernando! Get that gas bill changed, will ya?

Even if they make babies?

I'm not even a pretend lawyer but as far as I can tell if your male lover had a GRC it would not be adultery.

Hang on, so if I wanted an affair with a bloke (because I'm a straight woman), if he said he identified as a woman would that mean no grounds for divorce for my poor DH on basis of adultery? Or presumably to be consistent with everything in this thread my little piece on the side would need a GRC?

(Bit off-topic, sorry)

Well, I'd like to thank Spartacus for the namecheck, because I finally had the time to RTFT and, after a half hour of rinse and repeat, it was a tonic to find it on the very last page! I'd also like to thank Hooves for services to transwidows throughout. I am now so well informed.

hooves they are saying that it is fair to allow people to exit marriage BEFORE the sex of their spouse LEGALLY changes, because that change of legal sex fundamentally changes the legal marriage contract. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 sets out the mechanism by which this happens. There is no other annulment option other than that provided by the 2004 Act. Those advocating the removal of that mechanism would instead have people rely on normal divorce proceedings. There is no provision in normal divorce proceedings which guarantees that a spouse can be sure to be divorced prior to their transitioning spouse legally changing their sex; indeed their are many factors that may prevent this from happening. If changing legal sex becomes quicker (as those advocating self-ID hope), then this further reduces the chance of a divorce going through before the transitioning spouse changes their legal sex.

It is without doubt the case that a change in legal sex fundamentally changes the marriage contract, the question is whether you think it is reasonable for a transitioning spouse to have the power to make that fundamental change despite the fact that the marriage has not yet terminated (this might occur for all sorts of reasons, e.g. arguing over a financial settlement) or whether you think either spouse should have an option to terminate the marriage before that fundamental change takes place (which is the current legal position).

The law around adultery was originally all to do with PIV and men's need to know that they are the fathers of the children they are supporting. It's about inheritance not bad behaviour.

In the UK prior to 1923 only a man could file for divorce on the grounds of adultery. It wasn't considered a big deal for a married man to have unacknowledged illegitimate children dotted around. It was considered a big deal if a married woman had a child whose father was not her husband.

You can imagine what a minefield it would be otherwise.

our lecturer said that adultery had to be between people of the opposite sex because the courts had avoided getting in to what constitutes intercourse between two people of the same sex

I'm now getting a mental image of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

It's exactly that. The other side of the coin is that non consummation as a ground for divorce or annulment does not apply to a same sex marriage. A same sex marriage cannot ever be "consummated".

You could have done the same Hooves, but instead continued to wail that people were posting conflicting interpretations of the law. Links are provided. Read them.

Actually I did. I was trying to read through the link that bd67th posted.

If you've read something that you don't understand, or if you're not sure if you're interpreting it correctly, it's OK to ask, and people here are generally helpful. You showed no signs of having read the links. That makes it look as though you don't really want to learn.

Is it so difficult to understand that not everyone finds it easy to access often king and complicated texts? 10 years ago it would have been easy for me, now I've got no chance. By the time I've got to the bottom of the page I can't remember what was at the top. I also forget words and have word blindness so often all I see are letters on the page and can't understand them. But I guess that just makes me slow, or lazy, or goady if a sealion or whatever other insult you care to throw.

I gave been trying to ask when I don't understand and have just been insulted and told off. When I've expressly said that I don't understand 2 contradictory posts I get further insults, so please don't say people on here are willing to explain because that just isn't true.

I don't think the GRA has yet been amended to take account of this change

Oh bloody hell thats a good point. It's difficult enough to decipher as it is because of all the amendments. I'd be happy never to have to read the bloody thing ever again. But then if I'd never read it, who would there be to tell Hooves what it says?

Only TODAY has same sex marriage become legal in NI.

Congratulations to our Northern Irish posters.

It's very strange how there has been no debate around the law in NI

It's like the TAs know how far they'd get trying wokeness in NI.

our lecturer said that adultery had to be between people of the opposite sex because the courts had avoided getting in to what constitutes intercourse between two people of the same sex

I'm now getting a mental image of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

With so much focus on the spousal exit clause it's strange that tras have not focused more on the law in Northern Ireland.

Only TODAY has same sex marriage become legal in NI. Up until today a married person applying for a GRC would have had no choice but to end their marriage. I don't think the GRA has yet been amended to take account of this change.

It's very strange how there has been no debate around the law in NI and all the focus has instead been on the nasty mean transwidows in the rest of the UK who don't want their marriage contract changed without their consent.