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

You show a total lack of regard or empathy for the position of a woman, often with family, and many years of marriage.

Are you, or have you ever been, married? Have you ever built a life and family with someone; created a home? If you had you would realise that a 'good divorce' can take time.

Why the rush?

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.

I didn’t say it. Stop pretending that I did.

I already wrote a long post repeating verbatim what I actually said and explaining at length the context.

I have only denied the things that I have been accused of saying that I did not say. That is not dishonesty. What is being done to me on this thread is what is dishonest and in bad faith.

Yes it is a reason to remove it, as it is now excess to requirement. It is now red tape because the benefit it used to give, has been replaced in law by a better benefit and process.

You’re confused. A person is not eligible to even apply for a GRC unless they have lived openly and socially as the opposite sex for two years. There literally is no way a spouse could secretly start living openly and socially as the opposite sex without their wife noticing.

So the contention that this is needed to pause the issuing of a GRC because it can be done in secret and a woman can have no idea about her spouse now wanting to be a TW is not an honest reason. You cannot even be eligible to apply for a GRC if you’re keeping it a secret.

Will you therefore fully explain why you wrote this, and what you meant by it, please?

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.

Good for you as I didn’t say that, you can ignore those that have been saying it.

She still has over two years to get a six month process done. So the argument that it is needed so a woman can avoid being in a same sex marriage rings hollow.

I have a job, that’s where I “scarpered” to.

I didn’t say anyone was homophobic for not wanting to stay in a same sex marriage, what is dishonest is the constant pretence that I did say that. Typical MN tactic really, can’t discuss anything with logic or facts so you fabricate an ad hominem attack.

I see you.

Apologies meant to italicise @Froodwithatowel quote.

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?

This. Not interested in what I reckons from unaffected people, I'll listen to @TinselAngel and other trans widows.

Always such difficulty coping with the reality of what they are doing to women. The desire is usually to do it AND identify as being a good and righteous person at the same time.

And why shouldn't women want financial arrangements finalised before agreeing to end a marriage contract, Coriolise? Yes financial arrangements can be done afterwards, but again that's all about speed of dissolution for the benefit of an exiting partner, and it's not always in the best interest of wives and children of the marriage in some religions and some circumstances.

Even no fault divorce takes ages

It's akin to Nancy Kelly calling lesbians "sexual racists".

Notably @Coriolise has scarpered since their dishonesty regarding labelling women homophobic for not wanting their marriage to be revamped as a same sex union has been pointed out.

It's just a piece of paper - no it fucking isn't it is a legally binding contract that involves two people agreeing to the terms of that contract and both parties have rights. It is extremely offensive of Coriolise to tar women in marriages where their male partner has changed the parameters of that contract by deciding they are now a woman as homophobic, but what else to expect from a misogynist selling a Men's Right's Agenda.

For not doing men.

This is as you say Tinsel: another situation in which women are expected to wholly and enthusiastically predicate reality, their feelings, their sexuality and access to their body even, entirely around supporting what a male person says is going on between their ears.

The inability to see women as actually human is astounding.

It's akin to Nancy Kelly calling lesbians "sexual racists".

'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.'
@Coriolise , the fact that I am heterosexual and would not enter into a relationship with a woman does NOT make me homophobic. It just means that I do not find women sexually attractive. Neither do I find men who wish to be women sexually attractive. Those are my preferences, there will be other women who feel the same, not one of them will be homophobic.
Why should i have to stay married to anyone, for any reason if I was unhappy?

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.

This was what Coriolise wrote at 00.37 today.

Whereas I'd think it would be pretty homophobic if I'd carried on being married to a man (who said he was a woman) but declared myself a lesbian, despite not being attracted to women.

I couldn’t bear the injustice of this. Just thinking about others framing it that way would make me very blunt on why not.

Everybody else's own identity is paramount but ours is supposed to depend on somebody else.

And according to @Coriolise you are homophobic if you don't TinselAngel, if ever proof were needed that this is a Male Rights at all costs agenda there it is. Women - shut up, roll over and do as you are told, you are unworthy of any other expectation.

I agree with your take generally but I struggle with the idea it could even be a gay marriage
Legally it would be although biologically it isn't.

One of the main issues for heterosexual trans widows is the expectation that you have to buy into the idea that you have become a lesbian when you haven't.

Everybody else's own identity is paramount but ours is supposed to depend on somebody else.

Is this all what Ian Anderson was talking about with his conversation waffle on Sky last week?

It's as if they have rounded up a few volunteers to get over here and "conversation" at us while Labour roll out their latest batch of fudge.

Great to see the quality of conversationalist they have left at their disposal.