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

And the labour party are right behind all that.

“I’m saying if you don’t want to have a same sex marriage on paper, then don’t live for two years in what is essentially a same sex marriage”

So have I got the sequence of arguments right?

Midnight = the homophobia of not wanting to be in a same sex marriage on paper.

Morning = I never said that not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is homophobic!

In response to being presented with the precise quote = When I used the word “homophobia” as the reason for a person not wanting to “have been in a same sex marriage on paper” I wasn’t saying that not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is homophobic, oh no! Clearly, it’s not homophobic to not want to be in a same sex marriage, but it is homophobia to not want to have been in a same sex marriage on paper. Massive distinction. Entirely different. You’re all misrepresenting what I said.

I’m honest and accurate, me. Not like you lot.

Afternoon on return from work in a university gender studies department = living in (a biologically and legally) heterosexual marriage for two years with a spouse who self describes as a member of the opposite sex is living in “essentially a same sex marriage” and if you don’t want a piece of paper in the future to declare it legally a same sex marriage on paper as well as essentially a same sex marriage then the only way to avoid my homophobia judgement being bestowed upon you is to hurry up and get divorced before your husband manages to apply for a GRC.

I think those were the main arguments.

Some observations.

On terminology, “essentially” appears to mean “on Gender Identity Theory planet”

On rationale, the rationale appears to be:
i) not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is ok;
ii) not wanting to have been in a same sex marriage on paper is homophobia;
iii) a heterosexual marriage which is still legally a heterosexual marriage becomes, in the world view of the poster, essentially a same sex marriage from the instant that one spouse verbally asserts it to be so;
iv) any wife who puts up with that situation for any length of time would - in the eyes of the poster - be unreasonable to, and therefore loses the right to, object to their heterosexual marriage being restrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same sex marriage by the state at the behest of their spouse. (In other words the wife’s consent or lack of consent becomes irrelevant. She is assumed to have given her consent, tacitly and forever. Withdrawing it is therefore unreasonable and an unfair infringement on the entitlements of the transitioning spouse.)
v) the poster regards the Spousal Exit Clause as unnecessary other than as a means of preventing a heterosexual marriage from being being retrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same sex marriage without both spouses’ consent;
vi) the poster regards not wanting false declarations about whether your marriage was heterosexual or same sex being given legal status by the State to be “not wanting to have been in a same sex marriage on paper”, and therefore in their world view, homophobia;
vii) by mispresenting a concern for truth and accuracy as homophobia, the poster seek to position victim blaming as the moral high ground whilst absolving the spouse who has instigated the whole thing from any responsibility or expectation of consideration towards their wife;
viii) using the spousal exit clause in the GRA as a means to avoid your heterosexual marriage being retrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same marriage by the state is therefore - in the poster’s world view - homophobia, unnecessary, and an unreasonable withdrawal of assumed consent, and must be abolished.

I think those are the main arguments you are up against TinselAngel

Going by the other threads it's a train spotting, barrack room lawyer, TW collective.

Say no more.

She would know for at least two years that that is where her relationship is going because, again to be eligible to apply the applicant must have lived a minimum of 2yrs openly and socially as the opposite sex. That’s not something you can hide from a spouse.

Yes, and not all of these men get a GRC, so she wouldn't necessarily know that was on the cards.

...if their homophobia meant they couldn’t stand to have been in a same sex marriage on paper.

''Do as I say or I will call you bad names'' is an example of coercion.

On another note, as I said upthread, I don't want to be married/in a relationship with a woman, if my DH had announced that he was now 'female' I would have considered that he had married me fraudulently or not in good faith and consequently wanted the marriage to be annulled. i.e as though it had never happened. I would not have married him if i had any idea that he harboured those feelings. I would not want a divorce, for the reasons given. I suspect other women might feel the same.
And I agree that we should not be mollifying men.

It's not even actually about the woman involved.

It's about anyone that argues for the retention of consent. It can be used to smear anyone wanting to keep it as homophobic bigots.

At least they have plopped their hypocrisy down here.

It is but we'll get more pretzel twisting and accusations of bad faith because @Coriolise will never admit to having been caught out for their dishonesty, same old, same old.

Paperwork being fair game when it's not a transitioners essential paperwork. Then the words on it are life and death

But of course, it's men you see and any woman who wants records to accurately depict their marriage as it ends is just homophobic and just shouldn't care that in official records they are described as a lesbian and have been in a same sex marriage. Women must put up and shut up yet again.

@Coriolise
She would know for at least two years that that is where her relationship is going because, again to be eligible to apply the applicant must have lived a minimum of 2yrs openly and socially as the opposite sex. That’s not something you can hide from a spouse.

have a look at the transwidows website. It’s got plenty of accounts of men doing precisely that- concealing from their wives what they’re up to, disguising it as a fetish, doing lots to deceive their spouse.

“I see you.”

Everyone on here saw the post linking someone not wanting to be in an “on paper” same sex marriage with homophobia. The repeat quote of that post is just a few posts above your “I see you” post.

“Typical MN tactic really, can’t discuss anything with logic or facts so you fabricate an ad hominem attack.” Interestingly, sweeping generalisations and ad hominens, along the lines of this one, have been a regular feature in the repertoire of TRA/MRA visitors to FWR down the years.

So any spouse would have that 26 weeks times 4 to get a no fault divorce done if their homophobia meant they couldn’t stand to have been in a same sex marriage on paper.

That is not calling paperwork homophobic. That is calling spouses homophobic. Spouses are the subject in that sentence written by Corialise - 'their homobobia' and 'they couldn't stand to have been' ... It's in black and white.

It's one of the anti consent arguments. You are homophobic for not being happy with same sex divorce papers.

It's bad apparently to conflate what's on paper with reality.

They obviously want to smear the current process with bigotry but hold back on smearing spouses with bigotry as that didn't play well, so we get this paperwork distinction.

Paperwork being fair game when it's not a transitioners essential paperwork. Then the words on it are life and death and calling a man a woman not at all home!

Another genderist contradiction.

It never happened

And if it did, no-one noticed

And if they did, it was in a different universe

Thanks for this

That doesn’t make it any better. If I divorced dh I should determine whether it’s same sex or not.

If the law doesn’t allow that I hope we change it.

Women don’t need to continually pander to men.

It is homophobic to not want same sex divorce papers apparently.
Wanting divorce papers to reflect the reality that you signed up to and that you recognise, is not homophobic.

Am I homophobic then for divorcing my ex under the name he married me with?

No it doesn’t. The two are not mutually inclusive.
The spousal exit clause and self ID are mutually exclusive. You do know that just because you say something doesn't automatically make it true don't you?

How can a transitioner self ID if his spouse has an (even temporary) say over whether a GRC is awarded? It's not self ID if anybody else's opinion is involved.

That's why Belcher and gang invented the myth of the spousal veto in the first place.

That’s not saying that you are homophobic if you don’t want to be in a same sex marriage. You are deliberately conflating an issue of what it says in documents (on paper) versus de facto reality.

Quoting the answer given above. It is homophobic to not want same sex divorce papers apparently.

So it seems it's going too far to call spouses homophobic directly but you can say it's homophobic to be against the words on paper.

Literal trainspotters.

“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.”

anti-woman punishment agenda = nail / head.

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

So you’ll use that argument to campaign for the GRA to be abolished then. There was no same sex marriage back then, now there is. There’s no need for a GRC to allow two males to marry. It can be abolished.

Trans identifying people get the GRA process changed because they say it's too onerous for them, but according to Coriolise we trans widows need to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that we absolutely need something. What a double standard.

How does the 'quickie' divorce work where there are children or complex finances to agree and one party is being particularly hostile in terms of how to remedy these? Do the courts fast track these so they are all completed within @Coriolise's timeline? Or maybe Labour is proposing this?

Can anyone see this explanation?

Saves scrolling

<reaches for shades>

The good thing about Labour plopping this one back on the table is that they have demonstrated which side they will take.

It's definitely triggered the legal minutae obsessives off. I imagine flailing around down this rabbit hole gets them off the biology and chromosomes for five minutes. Labour must have chucked out this bit of meat to give them a break but all that is happening is more escalation.

“hogwash she would have grounds for annulment through the church for abandonment already.”

But her civil documents, the publicly available ones that will be available forever will show her in a same sex marriage.