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

Yep. The case since someone put into law humans could change sex

Which is why I said that lawmakers never think it through. In trying to resolve an issue they often create about 20 different ones and then have to rectify those, and so on......

I'm just spitballing here, but a much much simpler solution to all the above mentioned problems, just get rid of the GRA.

My last post was in response to 123ZYX

But how do you prove it without the paperwork, the person listed on the children’s birth certificate as their mother or father no longer exists, their birth certificate has been altered retrospectively, any marriage or divorce certificates have been altered and the document that ties them to their old identity is not publicly available. To all intents and purposes the person named on the children’s birth certificate as their parent never existed.

Anything other than repealing the GRA in its entirety and removing the "gender reassignment" category from the EA is insufficient, in my opinion. Trans ideology needs to be fully eradicated from our laws.

I'd have thought the problem with an auto annulment is the same as with a "spousal veto": you're not agreeing to a change in terms of the contract. You may well not want an annulment. You might be fine with it - that's the thing that lawyers would need to consider. What happens when the terms of the deal change, and what is reasonable for either party in those circumstances? Being forced to stay and being forced into an annulment are likely both unreasonable. And unreasonable positions for the state to take, in respect of your private life.

Perhaps the answer is something in line with when a spouse dies?

In that case, children are still the heirs but the marriage no longer exists.

As far as I'm aware, all religions allow widows and widowers to remarry.

Given the argument is that Joe Bloggs no longer exists (given the change of all historical documents back to birth certificates), it doesn't seem that much of a stretch that it could be compared to the death of a spouse for legal purposes?

"I think we need a third process."

I wonder if you could have a 'disappeared person' process. The guy or gal you married has (or is about to) go up in a puff of smoke. And, then reappear abracadabra style, as someone with a new and improved moniker and supposed sex.

Maybe life insurance could pay out.

Thank you for understanding. And inheritance rights for children in Scotland are different from those in England (a fact often misunderstood bu posters on MN). In Scotland, children cannot be completely disinherited so TRAs arguing that 'maybe X didn't want to leave anything to his kids' doesn't wash.

Also, in many religions and in law, the concept of legitimacy does actually matter a great deal. Why else are parents with a child who subsequently legally marry advised to re-register their child under the Legitimacy Act and receive a new birth certificate?

The GRA has to be repealed.

I think that ,there are lots of unforeseen circumstances when those who make laws don't have enough forethought to think through everything that might happen. and frankly I think this often is the case. They try to resolve a situation by simple means and actually make it worse.

This is an important point which may or may not have come up in real life yet, but if a divorced parent dies without a Will his or her children will need to prove they are related to be able to inherit. Where the name on the death certificate doesn’t match the name on their birth certificate they would need to prove the deceased’s change of name. As a GRC is not a publicly available document how would they prove that their parent is in fact the same person named on their birth certificate?

I married my late DH because he was male; if he had told me after the event that he had always had doubts about his gender then , had I known that when he asked me he felt that, there would have been no marriage. Personally I would rather that the marriage was annulled , so it did not exist, rather than me have to petition for divorce. Others might feel differently.

With protection for children - no rights lost.

Lets face it, there is nothing TRAs would accept except doing whatever they want when they want it, with full permission to trample over everyone and everything in their path.

Which is what law is for. To protect fairness and equality for all.

"We need a third legal instrument, which declares that the marriage has been terminated because the identity of one of the parties has vanished and been replaced. As PP have said, the consenting spouses can remarry, possibly with a short and simple process such as re registration."

Sounds sensible to me

I think this is the final nail in the coffin labour will never get my vote again

I'm done

I wouldn't like transwidows to feel coerced into re-registering a marriage to protect their children's rights (legitimacy, inheritance) though - that would have to already be a given. Choices have to be freely made.

@Thelnebriati
But it would be ‘special’ , so that might appeal.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen I think you are right about creating a new type of divorce for this situation, but I'm not sure trans activists would accept it as it would be evidence of their transition.

May I also just say, I'm sure that Justin Welby will likely be all over Labour on this 'progressive' move.

But Justin Welby does NOT speak on behalf of all the women of all the Abrahamic religions.

The use of annulment is interesting and problematic for me, as a close friend had her marriage annulled. It was a very traumatic affair, and I have never seen so many drained women as were in the waiting room of the Old Bailey court which was hearing the cases.

I think we need a third process. Annulment is a very specific instrument, it enacts that a marriage did not exist, either because it was invalid (consanguinity, bigamy or underage), or because it was conducted in bad faith (pregnancy, force, Existing STD, non consummated ). Spousal transition has been rather shoehorned in, because it is all very new and so the law did not have a place for it.

It seems to me though , that saying a marriage did not exist because of subsequent events is incorrect. The position of children of the marriage is quite unclear, are they now illegitimate because their parents were ‘never’ married? ( of course not, but that could be legally argued).

We need a third legal instrument, which declares that the marriage has been terminated because the identity of one of the parties has vanished and been replaced. As PP have said, the consenting spouses can remarry, possibly with a short and simple process such as re registration.

Name changed for this. Sorry it's long- but will explain why Spousal exit clause/ annulment must be retained. If the gov tries to remove the annulment option they will be in direct conflict with the UN Declaration of human rights and the major beliefs of world religions. This is an issue of competing rights. It will cause immense and lifelong pain to those who don't believe their husband's are women, and is a form of religious persecution, unheard of in the UK in modern times.

The UN Declaration of Human rights protects freedom to believe and follow your belief. Many world religions teach that marriage is between a man and woman only, ban same 'sex' marriage and do not recognise divorce- you HAVE to get an annulment or you cannot remarry in church/ chapel etc, and may be unable to take part in other religious sacraments.
Here's a link to Roman Catholic belief and teaching as an example (I have found many others):
https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/divorce-annulments-and-remarriage/

International Catholic teaching on transgenderism-
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf

So the Labour government may not personally believe in other religions, but they must respect believers' human rights to follow them. Trans gender beliefs-apparently held by Labour MPs- that a middle aged father of 3 is a woman if he gets a certificate, is just another belief, with no basis in reality, in direct conflict with other beliefs- eg the wife's ability to follow and practice her own faith. The gov cannot force believers of other religions to pretend to support ‘transition’ by the father of their children, nor consent to being in a ‘same sex in law’ marriage- as it will in many cases result in the wife facing lifelong consequences for the practice of her faith, as in the RC link. It has major lifelong consequences for the children too
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/363360/transgender-womans-daughter-shunned-by-hasidic-classmates/
and
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2022/03/12/no-exit/

The human rights protecting freedom of belief and religious practice is widely discussed in original Hansard notes.
Under international human rights laws, countries are supposed to take the least invasive option to respect everyone's human rights. So this is why the husband can still get an ‘interim GRC’ and either party can use it to end the marriage by annulment so it is fair to both, but the wifr can also exit her marriage BEFORE she is forced into a marriage that is in denial of her faith. (There is no spousal veto- it’s an exit clause for either party to use).

(IAN a RC or transwidow)