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
Froodwithatowel · 27/07/2023 13:13

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 13:10

Grin Grin

'I'm going to believe something stupid because the vipers were mean to me'

genuine LOL

Show quote history

If you'd behaved yourselves I might have managed to care about women.

Heard it. Got it on a bloody t shirt mate.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:12

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

No one has the faintest interest in what you think either way. We all do it for any lurkers who might be reading. We don't tend to let misogynistic nonsense stand unchallenged on this board, the feminist board, of a majority female site predicated on the existence and importance of biological sex.

SunnyEgg · 27/07/2023 13:12

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:09

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

You didn’t read the link though?

It’s all set out there

Froodwithatowel · 27/07/2023 13:11

This example of arrogant smugness: It is exceptionally symptomatic of the tone deaf/compassion and empathy free/ lady bountiful/master of the workhouse ethos we've all come to expect of this political lobby when talking to women and reframing their reality and trampling them down to benefit men's sexual freedoms.

No, words have actual meaning.

What part of your discussion TO women affected by this, rejecting their experience and wishes and feelings, involved listening, compassion or empathy?

At which point have you not told them that their wishes and experience is wrong and that you have judged it to be irrational, and illogical? (I believe you said you have exposed and dismissed every point of theirs)

At which point have you responded to anyone asking you why male transitioners' feeligns and wishes matter so much more than you will grant women partners' feelings mattering or being relevant?

You're going to have to explain why this is a factually incorrect summary of your approach to this extremely sensitive matter for the women who have been involved, and suffered as a result of their partner's transition. How it's 'arrogant' or 'smug' to point this out, I'm not sure. I do think it's exceptionally arrogant however to tell women who have had to escape an unwanted marriage that you know better than they do what they feel, what they need, where they are wrong about their own experiences, and that they are illogical and irrational.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 13:10

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:09

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

Grin Grin

'I'm going to believe something stupid because the vipers were mean to me'

genuine LOL

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:10

Again, it's control of the language and framing of gender identity.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:10

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:09

Nobody gives a shit if you change your mind or not, we are just fascinated by your approach. It is entirely in keeping.

Likewise. It’s been a pleasure.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 13:09

Im sorry but I’m not going to change my mind.

that's OK

your arguments are less than persuasive or logical so you are not going to change anyone else's minds fyi

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:09

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:09

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:09

If somebody wants to fundamentally alter a contract it makes complete sense to me that they are not able to proceed until the other party confirms that they're happy with the change, or has been released from the contract

Absolutely. What the trans lobby would like is no admission that the contract is changing in any way, because the person being male (or female but rarely) isn't something which should ever be acknowledged. It's completely irrelevant that these two people are getting a divorce, nothing to see here.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:09

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:09

Nobody gives a shit if you change your mind or not, we are just fascinated by your approach. It is entirely in keeping.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:07

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 12:54

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

I'm sure you are capable of reading what she clearly said. She is predicting that it will have a negative impact, for the many reasons given. If you don't support it being removed, why are you even banging on about it?

Oh, the reasons I already do not agree with…so more of the same.

We are going in circles here. Before the no fault divorce we only had those six months from the veto clause to do a divorce/annulment. We had to wait for the interim GRA to even file for it and the six months was a deadline to submit the papers. It was a one time only window of opportunity.

But that was then.

Now we are not forced to wait, we can file at anytime and we have a minimum of two years from when we’d know our spouse was transitioning to when the GRA would be issued. It’s so much better than before such that I still think that an extra six months on top is simply not needed any more.

Im sorry but I’m not going to change my mind.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 13:06

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Show quote history

If somebody wants to fundamentally alter a contract it makes complete sense to me that they are not able to proceed until the other party confirms that they're happy with the change, or has been released from the contract

common sense, surely?

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:03

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

Yes, I’m all for that too,

Show quote history

So we can repeal the feelings certificate then?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:02

No, the "transitioner" has a moral obligation to consult his (most often) wife about this change. He can then do the decent thing and divorce her. Or not, and suck up the extra six months at the end.

GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 13:02

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 12:50

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

Show quote history

My statement is perfectly clear just like yours that deemed people homophobic for not wanting their marriage redefined.

If you want to split hairs:

No you are not, you will not listen to or learn from those for whom the removal of this clause will have a negative impact, you dismiss and deride them.

Happy now?

SunnyEgg · 27/07/2023 13:02

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Well in that case let’s all acknowledge the fact that you can’t change sex and scrap the GRA

Fine.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:02

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Show quote history

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:00

I'm going to repeat that point.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Shall we apply this to all aspects of the Gender Recognition Act?

Yes, I’m all for that too,

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 12:53

the person changing their legal sex is the one altering the contract they have entered into with their spouse

therefore the primary admin burden should fall to them surely?

Show quote history

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:00

Let's!

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:00

I'm going to repeat that point.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Shall we apply this to all aspects of the Gender Recognition Act?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:00

Again, I'm not interested in the views of unaffected people. I posted the written submission to the WESC from Trans Widows Voices. I'm much more interested in hearing from TinselAngel and other trans widows about how this is important to them.

GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 12:57

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

How ironic when all of this angst about the removal of the exit clause is because of the feelings of the transitioning person and their feelings are paramount throughout including in the process of transitioning or applying for a GRC, their feelings count, no-one else's does.

I don’t agree with your charactering my point about dissonance of being ok to live in a same sex marriage for two years and then have a moral panic about a marriage certificate being updated after those two years to show reality.

You would say that wouldn't you. That updated marriage certificate does not show reality.