UNISON passes policy Trans Equality - Louder and Prouder

It's not a veto but yes otherwise you're right.

I don't know why the GRA didn't just include a clause saying that if a spouse wishes to invoke annulment or whatever of the marriage on the granting of a GRC that should be automatic, with no financial detriment to them. (I'm not very informed about the legalities involved, but I'm trying to approach this from the point of view of avoiding the onus being placed on the non-transitioning spouse to have to resolve any issues arising from something outside of their control. My sincere apologies if my suggestion is impractical or offensive in any way to the trans widows caught up in the legal fictions that the GRA created.)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

It's not for those without a GRC. It's only those who are changing their "legal sex" (another slippery term).

If they don't have a GRC they haven't transitioned. They just identify as trans. That doesn't cause so many legal problems for the partner trying to leave, as documents still exist in their name.

The exit clause means they can receive an interim GRC until the spouse has left the marriage and everything is settled. No one is being prevented from transitioning or receiving a GRC.

The spousal delay relates only to getting the GRC

Legally they can't change legal gender unless the spouse agrees or they formally dissolve the marriage

But what does "before transition" mean?

Most trans identifying people do not have a GRC.

I think it can be used to ensure either divorce or annulment before transition- the later I think for some religious groups where divorce is not an option

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how it works, but there is still a financial settlement process. Whether it is more disadvantageous than doing it via divorce, I'm not sure.

This is what I would worry about.

She shouldn't have to be dragged through the divorce courts, but then neither should someone whose husband has run off with another woman.

But the breakup is unavoidable, and what matters is that her interests are properly protected.

I was wondering that too, BabyJellyFish. If the marriage is annulled, does the wife find that she has never been married to the person concerned and thus have no claim for a split of marital assets including pension?

What would be the financial consequences of an annulment as opposed to a divorce though?

I'm not the one calling you names!

I'm totally on your side.

Just wondering what the spousal veto is and how it would work, exactly.

Does it mean the trans spouse wouldn't be able to get a GRC unless their spouse consented? Because at the moment hardly anyone gets a GRC anyway.

It's never really explained why the wife has to be dragged through a divorce instead of having the option of annulment, is it? Or why any decent husband would want to impose such a restriction on his wife, in the context? I suspect it's purely that the word "veto" can be dishonestly deployed to get sympathy from useful idiots, and also that some people like the idea of controlling others while playing the victim.

Yep.

I suspect ‘time wasters’ is on the money. Or derailment. I’m seeing it time and time again on these conversations.

Plop in spout some shite along the lines of ‘you’re all fascists’ and then sit back and watch as the topic of the thread is lost. Oh and ignore all the evidence provided by posters not providing any evidence to back up their POV.

We need to start ignoring them if they don’t respond to our polite requests to enter an adult discussion.

Yes! Because heaven forbid the non trans partner should have any say whatsoever in their own marital situation. It has to be all about the trans person's feelings 🤢

Am I right in thinking that the spousal veto allows the marriage to be annulled rather than needing to be ended by divorce?

JFC!!! People coming on here lecturing us, telling us they know better than us what we believe and what our politics are - and they don't even know what the "spousal veto" aka "spousal exit clause" is!

Time wasters!

Therefor the marriage should be terminated before transition if the none transgender partner does not wish to be considered to be in a lesbian relationship

If someone transitions they then claim they are in a lesbian marriage - giving their stbx partner the lesbian identity which is not the sexuality with which they identify

Your sexuality is yours to choose not someone else's

But what is the right of spousal veto, exactly?

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing which automatically nullifies a marriage when one of the parties transitions, or which prevents one of the parties from divorcing after one of them transitions.1

@SunbowRainshine31 Hmmm so I’m going to assume your not a union member.

Can you please explain your thinking on the fact that a number of us have said we are/were union members for a number of years (decades!), thus making us most likely left leaning and yet you think we’re in fact radically to the right?

Or are you suggesting that we’ve all be tricked into be being right wing without even knowing it? Do you think we are all that thick? That we don’t actually know what we believe and need you to come along and educate us?

Well The person you are married to hasn't actually changed have they? They are the person you married for better for worse , in sickness and in health

You don't have a right to push a divorce through before he buys a. Sport car for example

But by rebranding you a lesbian they have made a statement about your sexuality which is a protected characteristic

members of the public 'going to the council' to chat flytipping/bins/arrears etc will be totally on board with pronoun name badges (FACE PALM)

Spousal veto. So the right to decide who you are married to or to even discuss the options. Again, no debate. Women just need to accept.