Spousal veto

People are posting incorrect information it would seem and then others post in support of the incorrect information whilst others post contradicting it. I was trying to seek clarification so that I could understand, obviously that's the wrong thing to do on here.

After bd67th posted a link to the law on adultery as grounds for divorce, I went and looked at it, and interpreted it differently, which cleared up in my mind why two posters were posting different things about the same piece of legislation. By the time I posted my interpretation, bd67th had corrected hers and we all agreed.

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.

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.

It is always sensible to ask for sources. It saves a lot of wasted time.

Erm, six years wasted here, through misreading the statute. I'm going to argue that there's a place for asking as well as reading sources, because legal English is clear as mud and you might misread it.

Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other but one of whom is married to someone else.

A woman married to a man does not commit adultery by having sex with another woman. A man married to a woman does not commit adultery by having sex with another man. Their conduct might be indicative that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

A woman married to a woman who has sex with a man commits adultery. A man married to a man who has sex with a woman does too.

I was irritated by what I perceive to be your deliberate, obtuse, pedantic whataboutery and your continual wide-eyed reposting of questions that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people, many of whom clearly have more patience than me.

I'm confused because initially I didn't understand and this then became compounded by the many contradictory posts, illustrated very well over the last page. People are posting incorrect information it would seem and then others post in support of the incorrect information whilst others post contradicting it. I was trying to seek clarification so that I could understand, obviously that's the wrong thing to do on here.

Do you think you're now going to be accused of being "slow" too or told to go and read all the information so freely and readily available on line rather than relying on people here to correct your misapprehensions?

I'm accusing myself of being an idiot and wondering how the fuck have I done that. I'm not going to twist if someone else does.

Spartacus has already posted a link to aforementioned information. You're not the only person who is getting corrected on stuff.

Two pages behind.

I am very sorry if you felt I was being disablist Hooves, that was most definitely not my intention.

I did not call you slow, I said I was typing slowly. I said that because my impression from your posts is that you are deliberately being slow to understand.

I was irritated by what I perceive to be your deliberate, obtuse, pedantic whataboutery and your continual wide-eyed reposting of questions that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people, many of whom clearly have more patience than me.

If you actually do have problems with comprehension and are not deliberately being an obtuse pedantic sealion then I wholeheartedly apologise and will bear this in mind going forward.

It's probably best for both of us if I don't directly engage with you ever again.

It's no way to live one's life, never looking anything up for oneself, but rather desperately asking everyone around you questions, then getting stressed out if you get contradictory answers. It must be exhausting.

Divorce is a separate piece of legislation.

Yes, but divorce laws define how one may lawfully end a marriage, so they are relevant to a discussion on ending marriages.

I've spent the last six years misreading that.

Do you think you're now going to be accused of being "slow" too or told to go and read all the information so freely and readily available on line rather than relying on people here to correct your misapprehensions?

When I was studying law (around the time civil partnerships came in), 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. This is why adultery wasn't grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership.

I didn't know whether this had changed with same sex marriage so what I did, and this is a tip for you Hooves, I googled it. It looks like adultery still has to be with somebody of the opposite sex.

If you were in a same sex marriage and your spouse shagged somebody else of the same sex you'd have to divorce them for unreasonable behaviour.

Of course this has nothing to do with the spousal exit clause, but it's interesting.

OK, so the transitioning spouse is switching the set of people they have to shag in order to commit adultery, but that's not quite the same level of whatthefuckery as changing which laws apply to a marriage.

I can't believe that I have misread that paragraph for six sodding years.

Infidelity is defined as grounds for immediate divorce in a mixed-sex marriage by statute, but not in a same-sex marriage. Matrimonal Causes Act 1973, Section 1, Para 6 explicitly excludes infidelity as grounds for divorce of same-sex couples.

That's not how I interpret it. It says:
Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.

I think this is to do with the definition of adultery - it has to be between a man and a woman. So if a woman in a same-sex marriage has a sexual relationship with a man, her wife can divorce her for adultery. If she has a relationship with another woman, it is not classed as adultery. But this works in the same way in a mixed-sex marriage.

Interesting, but way off the topic of this thread.

The grounds for divorce are separate laws to those that form the marriage contract.

The marriage contract laws have been around for you yonks.

Two legal declarations as noted upthread. It is a legal contract. Divorce is a separate piece of legislation.

Read the links.

Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.

Does not say what I thought it said. I read it as applying to opposite-sex marriages. It's not: it's defining adultery as only meaning opposite-sex extramarital shenanigans.

I've spent the last six years misreading that.

SIX FUCKING YEARS.

'Well I will do now that I've been made aware of it. Bit difficult to know something that you don't know isn't it?'

The legal requirements around legally binding a contract of marriage in England and Wales (and no doubt other jurisdictions) is long standing and freely available.

Given all your posts on this thread I'm surprised that you haven't looked into the actual laws around marriage divorce annulment etc. They are very straightforwardly laid out on official sites and easily available on the net.

If are going on your own personal experience in your parish for your wedding from X years ago no wonder you're so confused.

Maybe read up on it some more.

But Spartacus upthread has said that isn't true - they both have infidelity as grounds for divorce.

But on marriage the contract that you also enter in to is to forsake all others. So if one partner has an affair then they've broken the contract. The remedy to that is divorce, not annulment.

You're conflating breach of terms with unilateral change of terms.

The marriage contract is governed by statute. Infidelity is defined as grounds for immediate divorce in a mixed-sex marriage by statute, but not in a same-sex marriage. Matrimonal Causes Act 1973, Section 1, Para 6 explicitly excludes infidelity as grounds for divorce of same-sex couples.

So a transitioning spouse seeking to change legal sex is going to unilaterally change whether that section 1 paragraph 6 provision applies to their marriage. I'll repeat that in simpler words: the transitioning spouse is unilaterally changing which laws govern their marriage.

It's a violation of the non-transitioning spouse's right to freedom from forced marriage to deny them an annulment or instant divorce to evade that change imposed by the transitioning spouse.

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.

• Aka completely batshit

Refer to the relevant laws rather than your personal experience/ what you remember

Well I will do now that I've been made aware of it. Bit difficult to know something that you don't know isn't it?

Long dead I'm afraid. Much of the lecture about the sanctity of the marriage centred around being married in the eyes of God, only a brief mention of it being legally binding. The only but that was really laboured was when they ask if anyone has any objections - the vicar did stress to us that no one should even murmur during this part as the wedding has to be stopped. Definitely did t highlight anything else as being the legal part.

Yes Hooves. It is "a bit mad". Maybe because the idea that someone can "change sex" is"a bit mad". And the GRA is "a bit mad", especially now we have full marriage and pension equity and so there really is no need for GRCs.

So the whole bloody system is completely mad. And will be even madder if self id ever comes in.

(I don't think the marriage has to enter the gender recognition register. It's available if people want to create a fictional account of their own wedding.)

Refer to the relevant laws rather than your personal experience/ what you remember

Is my advice

When talking on a thread about legalities.

Well you were misled then.

Contact your vicar.