Ruth Hunt uses maiden speech to make wildly misleading claims about the spousal veto

September 2019 WPUK article 'Spousal Consent & the Liberal Democrats'

(extract)
"The Women and Equalities report on Transgender Equality noted the following on Spousal consent:

“Since the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, marriage in the law of England and Wales takes the form of a contract between two people of different sexes or two people of the same sex. Therefore, the law as it currently stands requires both parties to agree to the status of a marriage being changed.

Consequently, where one party transitions, the non-trans party must give their consent to the change of marriage status before a full GRC can be issued. If such consent is withheld, the marriage must be dissolved by divorce or annulled before a full GRC can be issued. In this circumstance, an interim GRC can be issued, on the basis of which either party to the marriage can apply to have it annulled.”

In its submission to the report, the Government Equalities Office said:

“[The requirement for consent] does not mean anyone will have a right to prevent their wife or husband obtaining a legal gender change; simply that they will be allowed to decide whether they want their marriage to continue before gender recognition is granted. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and it is right that both spouses should have an equal say in their future when there is a fundamental change.”
womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

When I wrote to my Lib Dem prospective parliamentary candidate he sent me a very nice reply and also forwarded my questions to Liz Barker. Needless to say- no response.

How is is possible to design policy based on the experiences of one family - well really on the needs of one individual within that family??

This whole notion that it was Joanna Belcher’s responsibility to protect the family - seems like coercive control to me.

If you don’t do this - I will do this.

One of the questions we asked was - what evidence there is of the exit clause being used abusively- I've not heard that anyone got a reply at all- even her own constituents.

It seems the same questions need to be asked of The Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green as well as The Baroness Barker, of Anagach.

Indeed & wide ranging laws, beyond the GRA.

It also seems not to have been considered that the 'abusive/controlling' spouse could be the one transitioning, which if one considers common power dynamics within heterosexual marriages, especially with children, is likely to be the husband (however much he might prefer not to be termed thus).

Incidentally, many mumsnetters and others were kind enough to write to Layla Moran before the election, using my template email. One of the questions we asked was - what evidence there is of the exit clause being used abusively- I've not heard that anyone got a reply at all- even her own constituents.

Requiring the law to be changed for the sake of issues within one marriage is an interesting concept.

Allegedly say so, yes it seems thats the case.
The LibDems were clearly very moved by Helen & Joanna Belcher's speeches.

twitter.com/lfeatherstone/status/1172998880436326401

The absence of evidence is blinding.

"By the time a trans person becomes eligible for gender recognition, people will generally perceive that individual as already being of their "acquired gender"."

Nonsense. A male who has changed his name on the gas bill would still be perceived as male by most people. Or is Belcher talking about physical appearance? I thought it didn't matter?
"Some women have beards." - Layla Moran

So the evidence is "other trans people say so on private forums"?

March 2013 Parliamentary Public Bill Committee
Marriage (Same Sex Couples)
Memorandum submitted by Helen Belcher

(extract)
23. It is important that the legislation avoids gendered terms, such as "husband" and "wife", as much as possible. In the consultation phase prior to the Bill being published, the term used was equal marriage. I greatly prefer this term.

24. My wife is still my wife, despite my "transition". However, she may well struggle to refer to me as her wife, even after 10 years. For the state to impose that description on me would cause her great difficulty, which may disrupt our family life, thereby breaching Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Equally, however, I would (and do) object to being labelled the husband of my wife. I do not consider myself to be male, despite the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate (continues)

25. By the time a trans person becomes eligible for gender recognition, people will generally perceive that individual as already being of their "acquired gender". If the spouse refuses consent (to this intangible, perceived change of status to their marriage), then the trans person’s gender recognition process halts, and there is nothing the trans person can do to change that situation. It is quite possible that divorce proceedings may already be underway. This is a gross breach of the trans person’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

26. Relationships where one partner "comes out" as trans can cause disruption and hostility between the partners. Because of my work on support forums for trans people, I know of several cases which have resulted in acrimonious divorce as a result of such disclosure. Some trans people have been forced through long, drawn-out divorce proceedings with no ability to resolve them. The legislation as currently drafted would hand the right of gender recognition solely to such an obstructive spouse, who may delay it, without good purpose, for many years and, potentially, indefinitely.

27. I believe that there is an amendment before the Committee which removes the right of spouses, obstructive or not, to block gender recognition by withholding consent. I would urge the Committee to support this amendment."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m107.htm

"We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto"

Yes and I saw the Lib Dems framing it this way, as a natural extension to the introduction of same sex marriage, in the run up to the election. Maybe in their manifesto? I suspect Belcher had considerable influence on all their policies and manifesto commitments.

I guess Ruth Hunt is one of those lesbians who wouldn't mind finding herself in a marriage with "Simon" whose birth certificate says that they were born male. That's fine, but what about those who do mind?

If she is so against people being able to assert their sexual identity in a legal context, what is it that makes her so passionate about the legal recognition of trans identities? It doesn't make sense. She is prioritising a person's ability to alter their birth certificate above everything else.

We need the equivalent of a Full Fact or other fact-checker for women.

I'm beyond tired of what Will Moy terms zombie claims:

fullfact.org/search/?q=zombie+claim#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=zombie%20claim&gsc.page=1

Full Fact is remarkably effective and punches well above its weight. We're in desperate need of an equivalent service for women/safeguarding etc. that can deal with zombie claims like Ruth Hunt's.

I find Joanne Belcher's argument wholly unconvincing and probably disingenuous.

"I won't sign it because I shouldn't have to sign it."

Good for you for not signing, Joanna. And if you lurk here, solidarity.

(I wish you wouldn't argue for other trans widows rights to be taken away, but given your circumstances I endeavour not to judge).

So they're not actually losing out on anything?

They're losing out on a new birth certificate and on getting their own way.

They are deliberately smearing trans widows to achieve this. Where is the evidence that it has ever been used abusively?

Sept 2019 NewStatesman article describing how LibDem's were persuaded to adopt the policy:
(extract)
"The Liberal Democrats have today made it their party policy to remove the controversial spousal veto, a clause in the Gender Recognition Act that allows a trans person’s spouse to block their partner’s gender recognition.

Under current legislation, trans people who are already married need the written consent of their partner in order to have their gender recognised in law, due to a continued legal distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages. This means a trans person cannot gain gender recognition until either their spouse consents, or they get a divorce.

In a moving debate at the party’s conference this morning, Joanna Belcher, the wife of Helen Belcher, the Liberal Democrat’s prospective parliamentary candidate in Chippenham, told the conference about her own experience of the spousal veto during her wife’s transition.

“Sixteen years ago I was living with a depressed husband who had recently stood over a railway bridge and seriously contemplated jumping. We had two young children,” she told the room.

“We were both trying to work out the ramifications of the realisation that she needed to live her life openly as a woman. It became clear that in order for my spouse to change her legal gender, and for us to remain in our marriage, I would be asked to sign a consent form.

“I didn’t want to sign anything that said this was what I was choosing. I was supporting my other half, while trying to hold myself and our family together, but it wasn’t my choice.

“It wasn’t my choice and I knew this had to happen, that a second female parent was way better for our kids than a dead male parent. But shouldn’t have been my decision to make. This was a burden I didn’t want. Only my other half knew who she truly was.”

Belcher added that the law as it stands allows spouses to “use this veto as a weapon to hurt their exes and prevent them from moving on in their lives”.

Layla Moran MP said: “You shouldn’t be defined by anyone else other than you. That’s what makes the spousal veto such an injustice. The fact is your identity has nothing to do with anything else. No spouse should be able to veto who you are.” (continues)
www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/liberal-democrats-decide-remove-controversial-trans-spousal-veto

So they're not actually losing out on anything? Just something about their well-being? Which is clearly far more important than any other person's.

What utter rot this is.

It's so easily disprovable, I don't get it.
And why would they want to force women into a same-sex marriage? What's the point? It just seems like spite.

As somebody pointed out here a couple of weeks ago, (possibly @CharlieParley ?) it stands in the way of self ID and therefore has to go. They are deliberately smearing trans widows to achieve this. Where is the evidence that it has ever been used abusively?

With regards to "entitlements" I can only think it must mean things that only people of the acquired gender are entitled to (I can only think that women used to have an earlier pension age, but not sure if this still applies to anyone?)

Tinsel does 'entitlements' refer in any way do you think to the separation of finance and assets that happens as the spouse requests annulling/dissolution of marriage?

Transition is an expensive business, and a dissolved marriage usually means a woman trying to financially set up alone supporting the children, so fair division of assets is important. To not have to wait in limbo for potentially months to years trying to get a divorce while the wife's fair share of the joint assets are unprotected seems important.

I wondered that too.

Its not an 'entitlement' to unilaterally turn their heterosexual marriage into a same sex one nor prevent their spouse from exiting.

MakeMoreNoise article explains:

"This is why this section of the GRA would more accurately be called the Spousal Exit Clause rather than the Spousal Veto.

As well as not being a veto, it doesn’t even prevent transition. The transitioning spouse (usually the husband) is free to do what he wants, wear what he wants and call himself what he wants. He just can’t change his birth certificate.

Many women cannot get divorce due to religious or cultural reasons so this provision enables them to have an escape route from the marriage. Even when women can divorce, without the consent of their husband it can take five years." (continues)

The trans person can lose out quite considerably in entitlements and personal wellbeing during this time. " (continues)

What entitlements??

It's so easily disprovable, I don't get it.

I think they expect/hope that people will just see them as the expert and defer to their view, thus vote against the veto because bigot. Rather than looking into the topic at all, even slightly.

And tbf, many probably would just do that..hats the state of things today.

Do politicians just get handed easy-to-chant proposals that they then parrot without checking? Give it a brief once-over, see that it ticks the 'LGBTdiversityinclusion' boxes and then start waving it around?

If so, who has handed them this little piece of not-quite-true?

Trans Rights Activiststs have been working for a long time.

4 APRIL 2014 New Statesman article by Helen Belcher
"We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto"
(extract)
"For example, there’s a continuing distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages. One of the areas where this surfaces is in the area dubbed “spousal veto” by trans campaigners.

The new law allows for trans people who are already married to gain gender recognition without having to get divorced, which is extremely welcome and long overdue. However, because there remains a distinction between “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” marriages, the spouse also must consent. The trans person cannot gain gender recognition until either the spouse consents – or they get divorced. That's what campaigners call the "spousal veto" – although government doesn’t like the term, even though it's defined in my ancient Collins Dictionary as “to refuse consent to”.

Sadly, most marriages involving trans people break down, and some do so acrimoniously, with divorce proceedings stretching out over several years, mainly due to the difficulties in agreeing over access to children and distribution of property. The new law makes no exception for divorcing spouses, so in these cases the trans person’s legal right of recognition is on hold. They can only get gender recognition when the divorce is finalised - or if their potentially hostile soon-to-be-ex-spouse agrees to the change from an opposite-sex marriage to a same-sex one. The trans person can lose out quite considerably in entitlements and personal wellbeing during this time. " (continues)

"What of the spouses? Well, in an admittedly non-scientific poll of 18 spouses, not one supported the veto. Only one wanted some kind of say in their partner’s gender recognition process. Typically, these were supportive spouses who had stayed with their trans partners. Most trans people agree that spouses should be informed of a gender recognition application. Indeed, that was the outcome of a consultation with civil servants. But there’s a vast difference between “informing” and “requiring consent from”. (continues)

Helen Belcher is one of the founders of Trans Media Watch and also sits on the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity. She runs a software company in her spare time."

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-wont-have-truly-equal-marriage-until-we-get-rid-spousal-veto

Since the article was written in 2014, Helen Belcher has also had influential roles within Stonewall & Liberal Demcrats.

Stonewall Trans Advisory Group:
"Helen Belcher
Helen has been campaigning on LGBT rights for over a decade, working on sector funding and same-sex marriage as well as various trans issues. She fought Chippenham for the Liberal Democrats in the 2017 General Election, retaining 2nd place, and has been re-selected to fight the seat at the next General Election. She has been called one of the rising stars of the party, and works with many MPs and peers. As well as being a member of STAG, she is the Chair of Consortium, a charity working with LGBT charities, is the secretary of the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity, and is one of the founders of Trans Media Watch – on whose behalf she gave evidence to both the Leveson Inquiry on press standards in 2012, and a parliamentary inquiry into trans equality in 2015. She owns a growing software company which she has built up from scratch, has been happily married for 25 years and has two adult children of whom she is inordinately proud."
www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

There’s an explanation for the ‘he’ - part of the speech has been omitted. This is the Hansard link. Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green begins speaking at 4.31:

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-05/debates/81678CD1-63E7-4F5A-A70F-44E3B4A4EBEC/details

Just putting in link in the interests of accuracy. I agree that it is very slippery to talk about the spousal veto. I think it is a deliberate attempt to imply it is analogous to earlier divorce legislation when spouses could delay divorces for many years by refusing permission for the marriage to end.

I would not have realised what was really involved but for TinselAngel and the other posters on the trans widows thread.