Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

359 replies

Appleofmyeye2023 · 25/07/2023 11:36

Hi, did look to see if thread raised on this.
with the news yesterday about labour change in direction, but still wanting to “simplify” GRC process, they confirmed that they would still want to remove the “spousal consent” part. Obviously seen a fair amount of outcry on this.

whilst I completely agree that no one should be required to stay married when the terms of their marriage have shifted , is this need for spousal veto to end the marriage still a problem given the divorce law changes last year.

historically, the need for spousal veto was obvious. The newly trans spouse could refuse to consent to a divorce and force the other spouse to 5 years of marriage before the marriage could be divorced. Even if the trans spouse agreed , it would take 2 years plus if adultry hadn’t been committed. Undoubtedly a cruel and unnecessary burden on a spouse who didn’t want to remain in marriage to a spouse who wanted to change genders.

But, divorce laws have changed. Irrespective of any behaviours or consent of either party, a divorce now goes through a single “no blame” process and timeline. No matter what the real reason for divorce is there is now a minimum of 26 weeks time. Neither party can object. It is enough for just one party to say the marriage has irreparably broken down.

now we can argue that 26 weeks is still too long in these circumstances. When I saw the changes I was quite shocked as, imho, more critically it means people in abusive marriages have to also wait 26 weeks now, whereas in my case I completed divorce in 14 weeks due to safe guarding issues. But, this was debated and government determined that other safe guarding processes were available such as abatement orders etc

so, taking time line aside, we are now in situation that no trans partner can force a marriage to continue for years because they don’t consent to the petition. Divorce WILL proceed whatever the circumstances and whatever the views of the non petitioner

Either I’m missing something here , or I’m right in thinking that the spousal veto is no longer required, irrespective of any changes to the GRC.

can anyone explain to me why the spousal veto is still needed please

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Mythicalcreatures · 25/07/2023 13:19

Marriage is a legal contract if one of the people in the marriage now say they are now the opposite sex that original contract has been broken, off course you should be able to exit the contract ( marriage)

Thelnebriati · 25/07/2023 13:15

Its a massive problem. You can't divorce someone that no longer exists.

JeandeServiette · 25/07/2023 13:15

LoobiJee · 25/07/2023 11:45

Inaccurately calling it a “spousal veto” instead of accurately calling it the “spousal exit clause” is a campaign tactic by the Men’s Sexual Entitlement lobbyists.

Yeah this. Especially given the change in divorce law. Nobody is going to be prevented from transitioning for years, are they?

ResisterRex · 25/07/2023 13:13

Yes it is important. Marriage is a contract, and in these scenarios, that contract has been broken. This would not only be the wrong thing to do to women who cannot remain married in such circumstances but would have much wider ramifications for the contract of marriage. It affects everyone's marriage, if that marriage needs to end in divorce.

Yarnorama · 25/07/2023 11:56

It's an exit clause not a veto, and extremely important for women who, for religious or cultural reasons, can't/won't divorce.

dolorsit · 25/07/2023 11:55

Back when the changes to the spousal consent were first mooted I too couldn't see why it was an issue. After all the issuing of GRC would no longer dissolve the marriage, therefore no consent from the spouse was needed.

However my mind was changed when I realised that the marriage certificate would be reissued. It didn't sit right with me that one party could change the marriage contract without the consent of the other.

Of course, from having read the trans widows thread there are other reasons why consent should be required.

Framing it as a veto is incorrect. The transperson can get an interim certificate, they can change all their personal documents and both medically and socially transition.

dunBle · 25/07/2023 11:48

That's no help for women from certain religious communities though, who can't divorce within their faith, and use the current process to get an annulment instead.

LoobiJee · 25/07/2023 11:45

Inaccurately calling it a “spousal veto” instead of accurately calling it the “spousal exit clause” is a campaign tactic by the Men’s Sexual Entitlement lobbyists.

crumpet · 25/07/2023 11:39

I suppose it will depend on whether transition has completed in that time. In which case the divorcing wife will be notionally divorcing a woman. Which if you are heterosexual and had married a male would be adding insult to injury.

the spousal consent as I understand it enables divorce before that stage, so the wife is not recorded as having divorced a woman.

Swipe left for the next trending thread