Spousal veto

This might be helpful:

What happens to children of an annulled marriage is something that needs to be worked out between the two parents and the courts.[widgetsonpages id="In Post Ad"] An annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marriage never happened: the two people were never actually married in the eyes of the Church because certain conditions failed to be met upon entering into the marriage. The purpose of marriage is to bring one’s spouse to heaven and for the bearing and raising of children, a person might consider that if a sacramental marriage did not exist then what about the children? Are the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate?

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.

So, if the marriage certificate wasn't changed retrospectively this wouldn't be an issue? If the marriage certificate remained then people would accept having to go through the standard divorce process?

How do they issue a new certificate? Doesn't everyone have to sign it again or do they somehow digitally change one partners name and sex?

But then a spouse who has been cheated on didn't consent to be in an unfaithful marriage. A spouse whose partner comes out as gay didn't consent to be in a marriage with a gay partner. Those situations don't command an annulment. Who decides which scenario is the more painful

It has damn all to do with being "painful". Marriage is a contract. Being unfaithful or gay does not change the person's legal status. A GRC does.

The transinitiong partner can initiate the annulment (or quick divorce in Scotland)

So could they get an annulment without the consent of their spouse? Do they not have to separate finances and division of assets as they do in a divorce?

No it doesn't.

That's interesting. Doesn't an annulment effectively mean that the marriage never happened?

I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no

Oh fgs. They don't bloody have to delay their transition. That has been explained umpteen times as well.

The transitioning partner gets their interim GRC. The transinitiong partner can initiate the annulment (or quick divorce in Scotland)

A spouse in a heterosexual marriage did not consent to being in a same sex marriage; a spouse in a same sex marriage did not consent to being in a heterosexual marriage.

But then a spouse who has been cheated on didn't consent to be in an unfaithful marriage. A spouse whose partner comes out as gay didn't consent to be in a marriage with a gay partner. Those situations don't command an annulment. Who decides which scenario is the more painful?

Any number of circumstances can fundamentally change the nature of the marriage such that it is no longer the one that you consented to be in. Why was this subject in particular made a special case?

Doesn't an annulment make any children of that marriage illegitimate?

No it doesn't.

I think that largely depends on how much you've annoyed them with pedanticism.

Really? So that allows people to use disablist insults does it? I don't think you should call anyone "slow" regardless of whether they have disabilities or not because those sorts of words are harmful. Very similar to the way school children throw "gay" around the playground as an insult. It doesn't matter if the intended victim us gay or not, or gas annoyed you or not.

There will be people trapped in lengthy divorce proceedings hurting just as much,if not more, but without recourse to fast track annulments

The GRC issue aside an annulment is very different from a divorce and only applies in limited circumstances- basically that the marriage is legally void or avoidable.Our legislature has decided that "changing sex" is such a fundamental change that a GRC should fall within that limited range.

A spouse in a heterosexual marriage did not consent to being in a same sex marriage; a spouse in a same sex marriage did not consent to being in a heterosexual marriage.

My biggest sticking point here were multiple posters saying that it's unfair to be trapped in a same sex marriage against there will. I couldn't understand this because we have divorce in this country.

Without the spousal exit clause they would be trapped in a same-sex marriage until the divorce is finalised. Because divorces don't happen instantaneously.

Why do I feel as though I've posted the same answers to the same questions about 50 times?

I assume everyone else who has read this has now fully understood why removing this clause is unfair to women. So that's a positive result of the endless repetition.

I think that largely depends on how much you've annoyed them with pedanticism.

But whatever. I'm out.

Michelleoftheresistance

You shouldn't have to disclose anything, ask for special consideration etc in order to avoid other posters chucking around labels such as slow either.

I don't want anyone to evidence anything. My biggest sticking point here were multiple posters saying that it's unfair to be trapped in a same sex marriage against there will. I couldn't understand this because we have divorce in this country.

All I needed was someone to say that what those posters meant was that they wanted to get an annulment rather than go through the divorce process. Instead they posted that they are trapped in these marriages, which isn't true is it?

As a disabled person I don't expect other people to magically know how to help or accommodate me unless I ask them. That's a bit different from disclosing anything, it's just basic manners if I need accommodation, they're not psychic.

And if my behaviour is starting to annoy people, I don't expect them to just never lose patience with me either.

okiedokieme

I completely agree with you. In the overall scheme of things, this must account for a relatively small number of divorces. There will be people trapped in lengthy divorce proceedings hurting just as much,if not more, but without recourse to fast track annulments.

The problem is that we need better divorce laws, trans issues are a mere tiny element, 6 month waiting period for a no fault divorce is what is needed, no accusations required ... I'm considering filing for unreasonable behaviour because I don't want to wait another 18 months

I'm not trying to say anything. I was trying to be able to understand the position, which I was finding difficult given the opposing views being posted - it is a veto, it isn't a veto, you can get divorced, you can't get divorced, you can get an annulment and so on.

I suggest you read this and if there is anything in it you don't understand, quote the bits you don't understand, and ask people who do to help you.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786910/t455-eng.pdf

If you have an additional need and need posters to explain in a particular way then say so rather than throw around random accusations of disablism.

I don't think anyone should have to declare their medical history or disability in order to avoid insults such as "slow" being thrown around do you?

I'm not trying to say anything. I was trying to be able to understand the position, which I was finding difficult given the opposing views being posted - it is a veto, it isn't a veto, you can get divorced, you can't get divorced, you can get an annulment and so on.

I agree that it is a very very difficult situation. I still can't see how it is more difficult than other situations that lead to divorce and why there should be special processes applied. The annulment in particular seems quite strange to me but then the ability to re write the marriage certificate seems equally strange.

It should be added, it's not the spouse that causes all this to happen, it's the transitioner, so any negative consequences are not the spouses fault.

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

If you have an additional need and need posters to explain in a particular way then say so rather than throw around random accusations of disablism. The experience of people trying to help at this point is of highly pedantic obtuseness to the point of querying whether you are posting in good faith.

What do you want here Hooves ? What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like women shouldn't have the easy and immediate route to leave a marriage at the point their spouse wishes to wholly change the contract and they no longer agree to be part of it.

And now you've added that the woman shouldn't get her marriage annulled because Think of the children.

You make it sound as if you believe the only thing women should do is meet everyone else's needs, and their own needs and feelings should come last if at all. And you believe in removing the exit clause to make life harder for women.

So they don't apply for a GRC then. The spouse still then has to go through a standard divorce which could, potentially, take 5 years.

If they don't apply for a GRC, then whether or not spousal consent is required before someone gets a GRC is irrelevant.

I don't know what your point is, apart from trying to get people to answer the same question over and over.