Spousal veto

Good lord, can you imagine the children of a man who transitioned having 'becoming illegitimate' as a big traumatizing factor?

I mean, I think the fact that they have to try and come to terms with their father perhaps wanting them to call him mum, changing his appearance and demeanour, and very likely their mum being very upset by the situation, and the break up of their parents marriage. Are we seriously trying to leverage transwidows into not using their rights to end a changed marital contract because of some long forgotten stigma of 'illegitimacy'?

It's like a Victorian Melodrama.

Would you say if someone says "I will never marry an Indian" that there might be an element of racism in there?

Realise I’m late to the thread but I have to comment on this. Having a preference is not racism. Can’t help who I find ugly and who I don’t. My partner might be ugly to many others but to me he isn’t for example.

Well if they haven't applied for a GRC then none of this applies. I don't know what you mean by 'apply for an interim GRC'. I thought an interim GRC was issued to someone who has applied for a GRC and who is married so that they can start the annulment process.

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. So is the only argument that the spouse doesn't want their marriage certificate altered?

I'm not sure how getting an annulment, which basically means that the marriage never happened, is better than divorcing a partner who has legally changed their sex. Doesn't an annulment make any children of that marriage illegitimate? Does anyone doing this ask their children how they feel about that?

It's called a veto because that is an emotive word that obfuscates what is actually happening. What it actually is is a hesitation... to allow both parties to sort out how to ends marriage when the non trans partner does not want to be paperworked into a same sex marriage.

That temporary stop is the veto... It stops the trans person doing things at their own pace. It forces them to compromise, to acknowledge their partner's wishes.

What the pinknews etc want is for there to be no impediment. Further they have mooted that a partner who transes should not itself be one of the reasons for divorce!

As has been said, repeatedly, it makes better sense, legally and otherwise, to acknowledge the end of the marriage prior to a GRC being finalised. That's it, in a nutshell

I think the spouse should have every right to legally separate and start divorce proceedings as soon as they want. I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no.

How many times do you need to be told that they don't need to 'delay their transition' while the divorce/annulment is being settled. During this time they can take hormones/have surgery/change their appearance in whatever way they want to.

The only thing which is delayed is getting a GRC, which as every TRA will tell you is just a minor bit of admin.

Now do you understand?

I'm curious to know what happens if the partner doesn't apply for an interim GRC? Presumably this isn't complusory and so then the spouse still has to go through the standard divorce proceedings.

Well if they haven't applied for a GRC then none of this applies. I don't know what you mean by 'apply for an interim GRC'. I thought an interim GRC was issued to someone who has applied for a GRC and who is married so that they can start the annulment process.

But perhaps you know more about this than I do.

How do I know which of you are correct?

When I have this type of dilemma, I tend to go back to primary sources and endeavour to draw my own conclusions rather than demanding to be spoon fed. The document linked up thread by Pencils is a good place to start.

Is it the difference between a divorce and annulment that is causing the confusion?

I can't be bothered reading back but I definitely posted that it was NOT A VETO. I think I specifically said to you to stop calling it a veto.

Because many posters on here are persisting in calling it a veto, including some of the ones who are having a go at me now! How do I know which of you are correct? Maybe it's the ones calling it a veto who are right and those of you saying it isn't are wrong?

Why are you persisting with this wide-eyed," I don't understand" routine. It's getting very tiresome.

It's not a "wide eyed routine" - I don't understand.

PencilsInSpace

Rather than make sarcastic and quite honestly disablist comments to me " typing really slowly for Hooves" why aren't you being equally rude to all of the posters who continue to call it a veto, thus perpetuating the confusion?

OldCrone

I think the spouse should have every right to legally separate and start divorce proceedings as soon as they want. I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no.

I'm confused by the argument that once the spouse has changed their name things get more expensive. I could change my name by deed poll tomorrow. Presumably if my DH then wanted a divorce we would have the same expense and difficulties so should a spouse be able to stop a partner from changing their name regardless of future potential difficulties?

I'm curious to know what happens if the partner doesn't apply for an interim GRC? Presumably this isn't complusory and so then the spouse still has to go through the standard divorce proceedings.

I don't understand why the marriage certificate is changed tbh. At the time of the marriage the people were X and y. The fact that later y changes to w doesn't change anything, but if that's the process then so be it.

Why are you persisting with this wide-eyed," I don't understand" routine.

It could be intended to encourage the casual reader to conclude this must be a topic far too difficult for mere mortals to understand, so the dominant narrative (manufactured by TRA's) must be correct.

Some posters use the term veto, then others state that it isn't a veto, but the term veto is still being used

I can't be bothered reading back but I definitely posted that it was NOT A VETO. I think I specifically said to you to stop calling it a veto.

Why are you persisting with this wide-eyed," I don't understand" routine. It's getting very tiresome.

Some posters are saying they shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage, others saying they should be able to get a divorce if they want it - both of these statements suggest that divorce is not allowed which clearly isn't the case.

Hooves this has been explained many times, but I'll try once more. It's also about when the divorce takes place.

Should the spouse have the right to exit the marriage before that marriage changes from opposite sex to same sex or vice versa?

Should the right of the transitioning spouse to change their birth certificate and the nature of their marriage override the right of the non-transitioning spouse not to have the nature of their marriage changed against their will?

Should the non-transitioning spouse have the right to divorce before everything gets more complex (and more expensive) by the transitioner changing their name and legally recognised sex?

An interim GRC is grounds for annulment. It is not grounds for divorce.

From the document linked to earlier by Pencils.

An interim GRC is valid for a period of six months from the date on which it is issued. It may be used as evidence if either member of the couple chooses to end their marriage or civil partnership on the basis that an interim GRC has been issued to a party to the marriage or civil partnership, following which the court will issue a full GRC. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a marriage may be annulled or the civil partnership dissolved on this ground. In Scotland, a decree of divorce may be granted on this ground but there the 6 months limit does not apply.

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

So in Scotland it is grounds for divorce, but not in the rest of the UK.

To be fair this is a complex issue, that's why the TRAs have been able to misrepresent it. However carefully we explain it, there's always the possibility we will reach the outer limits of some people's comprehension. (™️FloralBunting).

Typing this really slowly for you Hooves:

Is it, or is it not a veto?

Everyone should stop calling it a veto. It's not a veto it's an exit clause.

Can you, or can you not divorce?

An interim GRC is grounds for annulment. It is not grounds for divorce.

Do, there's my confusion. Is it, or is it not a veto?
No

Can you, or can you not divorce?
It depends on your circumstances.

HTH.

My confusion comes from the different statements made on this thread.

Some posters use the term veto, then others state that it isn't a veto, but the term veto is still being used.

Some posters are saying they shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage, others saying they should be able to get a divorce if they want it - both of these statements suggest that divorce is not allowed which clearly isn't the case.

Do, there's my confusion. Is it, or is it not a veto? Can you, or can you not divorce?

The spouse has no ability to stop (or veto) the transition. Or even hold it up. As has been repeatedly explained.

This is purely and simply about the spouse's right at this point to exit the marriage if they want to, before the legal terminology of their marriage is changed.

I honestly have no clue what your point is, Hooves . I'm not that sure you know what your point is either.

I don't think there is an agenda per se. I think this is just being seen as a reason for divorce, as any other reason is seen, and that the same process is followed. You're ignoring the core of what I wrote! Even the bits that state clearly the VERY SAME thoughts as those you post in reply!

Why is that?

A spouse may well do other very painful things that fundamentally change the nature of the marriage - go and get a vasectomy when they knew their wife wanted a child for example.

This does not fundamentally change the nature of the marriage.

HTH

Helped me! Thanks 😊

What if the spouse refuses to engage in the divorce/annulment process?

The transitioning spouse can use their interim GRC to start the annulment process themself.

Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission?

No, the transitioning spouse can use their interim GRC to start the annulment process themself.

What if the couple were separated long before the trans process began?

Either spouse can apply for annulment when the interim GRC is granted.

Possibly in other relationships but not divorced?

Either spouse can apply for annulment when the interim GRC is granted.

Does the spouse still have the right to hold the process up?

The spouse does not have this right. The transitioning spouse must either get consent from their spouse for the marriage to continue or they must end the marriage. That is the process. It's just as quick whichever spouse applies for the annulment.

HTH