Spousal veto

Is this not all a bit mad?

Yes. The GRA itself is a bit mad, so everything associated with it is also insane.

TBF I don't know about religious ceremonies but I would put money on the officiating person having to make clear these points by law. As they are contractually binding.

I was married in church. The vicar made clear that the vows were legally binding but certainly didn't highlight one or two lines out of all of our vows. It was my belief that it was the whole of the vows that formed the marriage contract.

These are all very very frequently used laws etc that are freely available with a quick Google and top result.

It's not esoteric stuff or tricky.

There are many reasons the govt wants these laws around marriage to be clear and understood.

I got married more than a decade ago and they spelt out what words formed the contract loads. Because they are the only ones that have to be exactly right to bind the two people together in a contract of marriage.

Like I say, very very freely available info which is spelt out. Because it's important. Because it's a legal contract.

All other details remain the same, except that if the marriage "becomes" same sex the date of the marriage cannot be recorded as having taken place before same sex marriage became legal in 2014.

So does this mean that a couple who say married in 1985 would now be recorded as having got married in 2020? It will 2 records exist ie the 1975 one and a new one with name name in 2020?

Is this not all a bit mad? Why would not old records stand and if the couple choose to stay together, and want the relationship recognised, then they can enter into the gender recognition marriage register? Do both parties not have to consent to the marriage being recorded on this register?

No.

It is explained very thoroughly by the registrar what forms the contract in a marriage in England and Wales. Including that it is the words that form the contract-the words above. It is very very clear.

TBF I don't know about religious ceremonies but I would put money on the officiating person having to make clear these points by law. As they are contractually binding.

Any one want more legal explanation?

There is a gender recognition marriage register and a gender recognition civil partnership register.

Essentially once a party has a GRC they can record their marriage/cp in the appropriate register under their new name/"gender", and therefore obtain a copy of the entry (commonly known as a marriage certificate) with the new details on.

All other details remain the same, except that if the marriage "becomes" same sex the date of the marriage cannot be recorded as having taken place before same sex marriage became legal in 2014. Likewise if a civil partnership "becomes" mixed sex I don't think the date can be before 2 December 2019, when mixed sex CPs came in.

There is no need for either party to sign anything.

This is the relevant legislation (although this is it's unamended version and some changes have been made to it since).

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/50/contents/made?f00009

but honestly, hooves, do you really think that if a woman says she'll 'honour and obey' her husband that she's bound by some sort of verbal contract to actually do that, that her husband can divorce her for breaking the contract for not doing as he tells her?

Well I didn't promise to obey, I had the words changed so I don't see those as a legal part of the marriage contract.

I genuinely thought that the promises made during the ceremony were what formed the "contract" that people are talking about.

Can none of you see how confusing this is though? In the last page alone someone had posted the terms of an annulment, followed by someone else disputing them. Then another has posted that adultery is not a reason for divorce in same sex marriages and now someone else posts to say that isn't true. I'm obviously not the only person confused on here.

But on marriage the contract that you also enter in to is to forsake all others? Is this a UK thing?

No. It might be a religious thing for some but is certainly not a requirement to make the contract. Infidelity is one of the aspects which might make the spouse's behaviour unacceptable but that's all.

One good thing about olympic levels of obtuseness being displayed on this, is that other Mumsnetters who only had a nodding acquaintance with this legislation are now very well read on it, so that's brilliant.

True! But isn't it weird how this one clause gets so much attention? The whole GRA is a badly thought-out piece of legislation - changing people's birth certificates according to their gender feelings is just batshit.
I bet the next move is to change the law so that children's birth certificates can be updated with father's new identity as 'mother' (or vice versa).

Here for spoonfeeding duty.

'These words are at the start of the ceremony and must be included. The Declaratory Words are shown below:

I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I [name] may not be joined in matrimony to [name].

The Contracting Words
These are the legal words that marry you and these feature towards the end of the ceremony. The Contracting Words are shown below:

I call upon these persons here present, to witness that I [name] do take thee [name] to be my lawful wedded wife / wife-husband / husband.

Additional words can be added before or after the contracting words to complete your wedding vows'

The legal contract if formed by saying the above in front of witnesses and registrar.

The other words are traditional/ religious/ embellishments for romance etc etc.

Anyone who has got married in England Wales knows this as it's spelt out very clearly (possibly by law so people understand what forms the contract and when).

So, when you talk about the marriage contract you are only talking about the piece of paper that you sign?

If so, then how does this get changed? Are the bride, groom, witnesses, priest or registrar required to sign a new one or are some details just changed on the original one? If details are changed his does this work given same sex marriage wasn't legal until very recently?

But on marriage the contract that you also enter in to is to forsake all others ? Is this a UK thing?

My marriage certficate does not state anything like this. My wedding vows did, but that has nothing to do with the official contract for my marriage. I am very interested to know about this aspect.

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.

So this can't just be about changing the terms of the contract. I can understand it in terms of not wanting the original certificate re written to show a same sex marriage (if that is what happens, though same sex marriage wasn't legal 20 years ago so how can that happen?)

Copying and pasting from another thread.

"A marriage is a contract. If one party wishes to change the terms of the contract then either the other party agrees, or the contract is voided."

"And it is a change of terms. Statutory grounds for divorce of a mixed-sex couple include adultery. A same-sex couple does not have adultery as grounds for divorce."

The marriage is declared voidable, not invalid. The children are still legitimate and property must be divided. The immediate annulment means that no new falsified marriage certificate or record will show the non-transitioning spouse to have married a wrong-sex-for-them partner. The annulment is voiding a contract and preventing the transitioning spouse from unilaterally rewriting the history of the non-transitioning spouse.

Would contract law tolerate the unilateral change of a key term (in this case, the statement of infidelity as grounds for immediate divorce) of a signed agreement? Why is marriage, which is not only a contract but an institution protected by international human rights laws, somehow different in the eyes of those who object to the requirement that the non-transitioning spouse consent to remaining married?

The item posted up thread looked like a religious thing, I doubt it is much relevance for law in England Wales. References to sacraments etc!

Here are the details of the legal / non-religious criteria for an annulment under English law:

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

I've now got sidetracked reading the interesting history of bastardy laws.

I think we're in danger of confusing religious annulments with legal annulments here. I don't know much about them but I suspect they're not exactly the same thing

A declaration of nullity from the Catholic church will not, in the UK, legally annul a marriage. A Catholic friend of mine who was divorced was encouraged by her priest to have her marriage annulled so that she could, if she wanted to, remarry as a Catholic. Obviously so far as Civil law is concerned she could remarry.

I think we're in danger of confusing religious annulments with legal annulments here. I don't know much about them but I suspect they're not exactly the same thing.

Legitimacy is a legal concept dealing primarily with inheritance. There is nothing illegitimate about children of an annulled marriage in the eyes of the Church. They can still receive the sacraments, i.e. they can be baptized, receive communion, get married or become a priest, receive confirmation, et cetera

Under the law of England and Wales and Scotland illegitimacy has no legal standing on inheritance other than inheriting nobility titles- not property.

The Scottish Parliament actually abolished the concept in 2006.

"No person who is governed by Scots law shall be illegitimate" is part of Scots law.

Indeed tinsel, many thanks to all

I give you that, Tinsel. Learned a lot.

One good thing about olympic levels of obtuseness being displayed on this, is that other Mumsnetters who only had a nodding acquaintance with this legislation are now very well read on it, so that's brilliant.

Just reading and losing the will to live. I know I know, I don't have to look, I could just go elsewhere, but has anyone else seen my grey rock?