Spousal veto - labour proposal , is it really a problem now?

It is not all about the man who desires to'transition' whatever that means.

Since living as the opposite sex is all in the person's own head - what difference does it make if it is two years or ten years? Two people, at least, are involved.. Marriages are not just abou thet two people signing a contract - but about the intimacy and involvement of a life and a home built together; about family; friends; inter-twined financial arrangements; about self concept, one's role in the community and in friendship groups and so on.

You think that changing one's records and certificates ( falsifying commonly understood reality) should be a simple and easy process? Why?

That is not a concrete reason for removing it, which is what I asked.

The two can happily co exist, giving women options.

It’s not needed due to the no fault 26 week divorce law that has come into effect.

Review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004: consultation analysis
Published 23 November 2018
Directorate Justice Directorate
Part of Communities and third sector, Equality and rights, Law and order

“Scottish marriage”
4.1. “The Gender Recognition Panel can only issue a full GRC to a married applicant if their spouse has confirmed that they are content to stay in the marriage. The Scottish Government is aware of concerns about the requirement for the consent of a spouse in relation to an application for legal gender recognition under the 2004 Act”.[8]
4.2.” As the consultation paper notes, the requirement may give a trans person’s spouse inappropriate power to determine the trans person’s access to their legal rights. However, it can be seen by others as a reasonable balance between the rights of the trans person to seek recognition of their acquired gender and those of their spouse to decide whether they want to stay in the marriage”.

Please would someone explain why it seems here as if the reason for this part of the law is so that the non-trans spouse can decide they might want to stay in the marriage, and if they do decide to stay this would prevent the transitioning spouse from getting the GRC? That sounds more like a ‘veto’. Is this explanation I have quoted from this ‘Review’ true?

What is the concrete reason for removing it?

It takes the spouse TWO YEARS of living openly as the opposite sex before they can even apply for a GRC and get an interim one. I am happy with that and not advocating for any change to this to make it quicker.

That is FOUR TIMES the amount of time needed to do a no fault divorce. Not to mention it is over FOUR YEARS from referral to first appointment at the gender clinic if they want to medically transition. So no one is going to be sharing a home or bed with a person mid-transition, unless they choose to.

The facts are, if a man wishes to transition to TW, then he has a much longer process to go through that cannot be done in secret compared to his wife.

Youre right it’s not equitable, it’s in the spouse’s favour and that is without the veto clause, which is tips the balance even further towards the spouse. I don’t want things to be equitable, I want them to stay in favour of the spouse just not so heavily in their favour.

How much more time does a woman need to escape a marriage if FOUR TIMES the time it takes to even apply for a GRC is not enough time?

Your emphahiss does not seem to be on treating both people equitably.....but on permitting the man to do as he desires as quickly as possible - without any regard for the other party; for any children involved; the longevity and entanglement that comes from having been married for a long time.

Honesty has always been my preferred “tactic” in discourse.

You can say it all you want to, but thus far no one has a concrete reason why it is still needed. I am a woman, and I am possessed of an analytical mind and some legal expertise. Give me a reason that bears up under a bit of scrutiny as the clause being the only or fastest recourse to exit a marriage and you’ll have my support.

The reason I say this is could women temporarily identify as transmen to get out of marriages that are normally difficult to get out of for cultural/religious reasons?

No. It never existed in the GRA for Scotland when it was originally enacted.
It’s always been enacted as grounds for divorce, never a civil version of annulment(voiding the marriage).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/schedule/2/paragraph/6/enacted

no one on this thread has been able to come up with a reason that can withstand the slightest bit of factual scrutiny.

Interesting to see this is going to be the tactic going forward. Thanks for the info. It's valuable for the fight back. Now I understand why Dodds said our rights are "outdated".

They were affected before the no fault 26 week divorce path was created.
Their experiences can now be avoided.

We say this right is still needed. What other groups of women do you disregard who say this about their rights.

Removal of the veto clause will not trap women in a marriage- it doesn’t even exist in half the U.K. and those women escape their marriages just the same without it.
It was got rid of in Scotland under the radar, it doesn't mean we should do the same.

They were affected before the no fault 26 week divorce path was created.
Their experiences can now be avoided.

No one is advocating for women to be trapped in a marriage.

Removal of the veto clause will not trap women in a marriage- it doesn’t even exist in half the U.K. and those women escape their marriages just the same without it.

The OP is correct, with the new no fault, 26 week divorce it’s not needed for any reason at all. Or at least no one on this thread has been able to come up with a reason that can withstand the slightest bit of factual scrutiny.

What happens in cases of detransition after the divorce/annulment? Do you have to get divorced again?

I'm also interested in those who think this should be removed:

we have the women affected right here on MN. They have made submissions in the public domain of how this affects them, the negative aspects for them, and what they want and would have saved them from in many cases very damaging and destructive times in their lives due to their partner's transition.

They're stating both the problems, and their preferred solution.

And yet people NOT in that situation and unaffected by it are insisting they know better.

Why? What agenda is this serving if these women's voices,, experiences and needs are being disregarded?

Women do not need to escape marriages they no longer wish to be part of because Reasons.

Mostly that them not being able to be recognised as an equal partner in the marriage, with an equal voice and rights to an autogynephilic man is inconvenient to said man. Which is transphobic. Or something.

Fgs, are you really this invested in ensuring this happens to women and they're stripped of all protections against it? Why? Does thinking of that woman trapped and in distress have some kind of value to you? What kind of utter arse forces staying in an unwanted marriage on his wife anyway unless he's an abusive bastard?

But all this endless wittering and hairsplitting and sealawyering to spin things against women is a very good demonstration of why this needs to be removed from anyone's hands at all where they can spill their anti-woman punishment agenda all over it to show how very right on they are. Marriages need to be automatically dissolved as part of the GRC process. If the woman then chooses she can re marry her newly identitied partner. And if she doesn't, she's free.

And that will do until we get rid of the GRCs altogether by repealing the GRA which was a bloody awful idea and this is one of the many manifestations of why.

I'm very clear it's not me muddying the waters. But carry on with all the sunlight, it's most welcome

You’re muddying the waters here, we are not taking about whether a religious marriage is also a valid civil marriage- we know it is not. Similarly, in many regions a civil marriage or divorce is not recognised by them until or if they approve their own religious marriage or annulment or divorce accordingly.

We are talking about a civil annulment clause that posters have wrongly stated is necessary to protect women of certain religions, Catholics being given as an example, that need an annulment over a divorce.

However what these posters did not know is that Catholicism and the other major nonCoE religions do the annulments themselves and do not recognise the civil divorce proceedings as a divorce in their religion. So no Catholic woman is going to be barred from marrying in a church if she has secured an annulment from the tribunal in the Catholic Church- they do not recognise the civil divorce proceedings she would also do as a divorce in the church.

The contention that a spousal veto is necessary to protect women of certain religions is questionable since the example of Catholics given was incorrect. It also doesn’t apply to Muslim women and I have looked up Jewish women this morning, doesn’t apply to them either.

If it were so necessary, then the most Catholic regions of the U.K. would have been up in arms about the fact that the spousal veto and civil version of annulment doesn’t exist for them as that clause is only available in England and Wales.

If anyone has any example of a religion that does require it, please post some information & evidence showing this.

Because as it stands reasons for it that have been given have fallen apart at the slightest bit of research.

Yes you can. The civil divorce can precede or follow the religious annulment.

Why did you mention homophobia

How is it relevant?

You think it’s homophobic to not want to be married to someone of the same ‘sex’?

No I do not.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

It would be if I had said it. I didn’t.

Typical MN tactic to take something and twist it into something else.