How to make policy: hide it in other policy. Layla moran and the lib dems at conference

[Anlaf]

lib dem conference voting this morning on equal marriage - Layla Moran proposing motion on equal marriage, particularly in NI and movingly mentioning testimony of the journalist Lyra Mckee, killed this year. Also to cover strengthening rights of cohabiting couples and for anyone awake enough to notice:

Remove the spousal veto
Obstacles still exist preventing equal marriage in England and Wales, including the spousal veto which allows the married spouse of a trans person to veto their spouse's full legal gender recognition and hands a person's ability to self-identify to their partner, who may not have their best intentions at heart.

www.libdems.org.uk/f9-equal-marriage

I have no doubt the spousal veto (which I would rather describe as the partner of a person transitioning being able request an end to the marriage, rather than become married to someone of the same (or in a gay couple, opposite) legal sex) is worthy of political debate.

Surely worth more attention than hiding it in a bullet point towards the bottom of a motion on another topic?

Even if it means they don't have any financial obligation to you,

Sorry I misread your post Juells and then pressed send too soon.

I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.

If anybody knows how we can find out if a marriage dissolved with the veto removes the transitioning partner's financial obligation, then I'd be keen to hear it.

It probably doesn't since they are still the biological parent; but most men get away with not paying child support anyway, and that pressure must be removed for women to be able to make a decision.

No I mean their financial obligation to the wife, not the children.

I think the effect of this on women is potentially even worse than has been suggested, isn’t it?

If the spousal consent requirement is removed, a woman will will need to rely on being able to divorce the newly minted trans woman. But on what ground? If unreasonableness, would this not be affected by removal of the spousal consent requirement? (In that the very fact of removing the requirement sends a strong message that transition is a normal part of life, perfectly reasonable, etc.)

A court will make its decision about unreasonableness in the context of an individual case, having regard to what is generally considered unreasonable- and this change would affect that assessment. A woman would be trapped in a ‘lesbian’ marriage she’d never entered into, unless she could show some aspect of unreasonable behaviour that was nothing to do with transition.

Obviously this ties in with other issues around reform of divorce law. But what I’m getting at is that without a more wide ranging reform, removing the spousal veto could also make it impossible to divorce a transitioned person on the ground of unreasonableness- so forcing a woman, against her will, to remain in a marrriage with a person who now claims to be a woman.

Which financially would be great for the transitioned person - no pesky divorce settlement!

I don’t think we should assume the LDs won’t ever be in a position to implement this. A hung Parliament where a Labour relies on LD support is quite likely, I would have thought. We also should not underestimate men’s determination to avoid being ‘dragged down’ by having to make adequate financial provision for families on divorce.

tinsel I agree - there needs to be a divorce lawyer thinking about this and writing an assessment. Any out there?

Just concerned that we should not lose sight of the fact that legislative changes in any field have a knock on impact on how courts make decisions about what is and isn’t reasonable in related fields.

Casting my mind back to my legal studies, I think "unreasonable behaviour" is based on what the petitioner found unreasonable (and therefore made it intolerable to live with the respondent), not what others might consider to be unreasonable.

Transitioners always behave so badly that it's not hard to find examples of their unreasonable behaviour that don't directly relate to the change of sex.

I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.

If anybody knows how we can find out if a marriage dissolved with the veto removes the transitioning partner's financial obligation, then I'd be keen to hear it.

Noted, Tinsel.
IANAL
My understanding is that financial obligation may only be removed if the marriage is void as opposed to voidable, and gender reassignment is grounds for the latter.

Im not sure that's true a woman was recently prevented divorcing her husband by the courts as they didn't find him unreasonable enough...

Wasn't there going to be some new legislation about no fault divorce

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/divorce-married-woman-uk-supreme-court-husband-loveless-woman-supreme-court-tini-owens-hugh-a8462696.html

She was told she had to wait 5 years.

'I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.'

But the libdems are campaigning to remove something when it's not clear what the knock on will be.

Agree with much of this - it's Chestertons's Fence isn't it:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

What is the current spousal veto consent clause for? What does it protect? And what is the impact of removing it, on all those involved?

What is the current spousal veto consent clause for? What does it protect? And what is the impact of removing it, on all those involved?

55. The GEO explained to us as follows the Government’s position on the spousal consent provision:

[The requirement for consent] does not mean anyone will have a right to prevent their wife or husband obtaining a legal gender change; simply that they will be allowed to decide whether they want their marriage to continue before gender recognition is granted. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and it is right that both spouses should have an equal say in their future when there is a fundamental change […] The Ministry of Justice has committed to monitor issues arising from the spousal declaration of consent. Since the gender recognition provisions of the 2013 Act were only introduced in December 2014, there is not yet enough evidence to review the impact of these changes.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39006.htm
(Published in 2016)

But the libdems are campaigning to remove something when it's not clear what the knock on will be.

Yes. We should give it more thought than them.

'I would like feminists not to campaign in support of the retention of something which they are unsure of the practical application of.'

But it's OK for the libdems to campaign to change an existing law, on the same basis?

Did you see the link about unreasonable behaviour BTW I'm afraid your idea that unreasonableness is in the eye of the recipient is not correct.

But it's OK for the libdems to campaign to change an existing law, on the same basis?

Jeez, no I didn't say that!

I'd like us to make sure, if we campaign for the retention of the spousal veto, that we're not accidentally campaigning for something that allows the husband to get out of his financial responsibilities by voiding the marriage.

And I wasn't giving a definite position on unreasonable behaviour, I'm not a solicitor. It was more of a question.

It's not hard to make a petition for unreasonable behaviour based on how most transitioners carry on, even putting aside the fact of the transition itself (speaking from experience).

Yes we probably need to oppose the Lib Dem's stance but let's make sure we've considered it properly.

But you are correct, Fraggling, in that an unreasonable behaviour petition does fall if the other party doesn't agree to it.

@twelvecolourfulbirds I don’t disagree that the breakup of a marriage will in a lot of cases result in someone (if not both parties) feeling extremely hurt and distressed; but I am not sure how the spousal veto helps the spouse with these, other than giving them a legal way to hurt their partner. The spousal veto does not prevent the trans person transitioning and from their spouse potentially feeling all the things you have listed.

I’d also be very worried about making law based on whose feelings have most been hurt in a situation and am not sure how that would work or how it would lead to certainty about the law, if judges were liable to rule based on who presented in court as being more upset.

I’m not a card-carrying Lib Dem either, but they do have my vote as I’m in an area where they are the main opposition to the Tories.

@juells I am genuinely new here – long time lurker, but this is my first post. I’m not someone who has name changed if that is what you are thinking.

@theprodigalkittensreturn Would you elaborate further? As I said above, I can see that the spouse could be upset by being in a marriage of a different sexuality, but I can’t see that this prejudices them legally in any way whereas the spousal veto does prevent the trans person getting their GRC.

@Anlaf Hi back – I don’t know if you can change birth certificate with an interim GRC. I agree with you that the EA2010 doesn’t require a GRC, so fair enough to discount that, but would still say that the person who has transitioned is left without legal protections if they cannot get the GRC for potentially some considerable time.

I’m not in LD politics, but am quite flattered that you think I am. My post focused on marriage because we now have marriage equality and it would therefore not surprise me if civil partnerships because less frequent in the next few decades. Assuming this mostly does apply to women married to trans women, I can’t see any equalities impact because from a legal standpoint they have the same rights – the spouse is still a married women – and I would be worried about bringing anything into law which implied that a gay marriage was less valid than a straight marriage.

@SlipperyLizard Actually, I think you’ve nailed my feelings on this. The position of a trans person who cannot get a GRC is harmful. The position of the spouse who is how legally in a different type of marriage (gay/straight) from the one they entered into is unsatisfactory. I’d have thought ideally we want no fault divorce to solve this, and then it is up to the parties to resolve things to suit them.

The position of a trans person who cannot get a GRC is harmful. The position of the spouse who is how legally in a different type of marriage (gay/straight) from the one they entered into is unsatisfactory.

I think the contrast between 'harmful' and 'unsatisfactory' in this paragraph betrays a rather shallow grasp on the issues faced by transwidows, tbh.

but I am not sure how the spousal veto helps the spouse with these, other than giving them a legal way to hurt their partner

Sorry I can't let this pass. What evidence is there that this has ever happened? It allows one party the option of terminating a contract, the terms of which have been fundamentally altered.

The only way you can see this is them "hurting their partner"?

You say you are new around here @KaitlynFairchild. You probably don't comprehend how women are hurt in these relationships. I suggest you read the trans widows threads to educate yourself on that, and then come back to this debate better informed.

I don’t disagree that the breakup of a marriage will in a lot of cases result in someone (if not both parties) feeling extremely hurt and distressed; but I am not sure how the spousal veto helps the spouse with these, other than giving them a legal way to hurt their partner.

Kaitlyn See my previous post re the government's position.
[The requirement for consent] does not mean anyone will have a right to prevent their wife or husband obtaining a legal gender change; simply that they will be allowed to decide whether they want their marriage to continue before gender recognition is granted. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and it is right that both spouses should have an equal say in their future when there is a fundamental change […]

The law is not about hurt feelings. If the trans person is seeking to have his identity validated in the eyes of the law, it seems fair to give the spouse the chance to agree or refuse to be part of something that could potentially misrepresent her sexual identity.

I think the principle of spousal consent is sound, but as Tinsel says, the legal implications wrt financial settlement need to be clarified.
And labelling het women as homophobes if they don't want to find themselves being married to another 'woman' is offensive and manipulative. It's weird how a man's trans status always seems to override women's sexual orientation.

I typed the following a couple of hours ago in reply to you, KaitlynFairchild . ThePurported has made the same point, and much more eloquently and pithily than I, but I will post it anyway.

Look, the spousal veto should not be removed unless there is first a major reform of the current divorce legislation, which is utterly archaic, but won't be changing any time soon thanks to Brexit.

The spouse needs to have some control over what is happening to their life. This is not all about the "true identity" of the transitioner. This is also about the identity and dignity of the spouse. It's funny how you are fully prepared to back a wholesale change in the law based on someone's nebulous feelings, and yet the feelings of the people they devastate are viewed as irrelevant.

With the veto in tact, the spouse can have some control over the process and how it will effect her. If she knows her spouse wants to transition, she can get her ducks in a row before a GRC is granted, including starting and completing the divorce process if necessary.

As the divorce laws currently stand, if the veto is removed and self ID comes into place to allow a GRC to be granted with no proof or process, then there is nothing to stop the wife coming home one day and, out of the blue, with absolutely no warning whatsoever, finding she is in a same sex marriage.

She is then stuck with having not only to deal with the shock of this, but with the burden to then have exit the marriage, whilst already being mandated by law as being a lesbian, because this will be the only way the marriage can exist post GRC. She will have the usual divorce routes, the 2 year separation with consent (5 years if no consent), adultery or desertion(which may or may not have happened) or the unreasonable behaviour route.

With regard to the latter, it would not surprise me at all if the next bit of lobbying from the trans rights lobby is to try to remove expressions of "true self" from the definition of unreasonable behaviour, on the grounds that it is transphobic to suggest that transitioning activities (hormones, surgery, dress, pronoun changes, sexual identity changes) are unreasonable ones. I can see women being accused of being transphobes and homophobes for even suggesting that they find their husband's feminine pastimes intolerable.

Oh, and to suggest that it is merely "unsatisfactory" but not "harmful" to suddenly find that your whole sexual identity, relationship history and social standing has been redefined by somebody else is bloody disgusting.

twelvcolourfulbirds that's exactly what worries me. A court system that can try to force Maria Mac to call her male attacker "she" is also one which could refuse to accept that a man forcing his wife into a faux lesbian relationship is unreasonable behaviour (even if any sane person could immediately see it was not merely unreasonable but psychologically abusive behaviour).

But I also share Tinsel's worry that the spousal "veto" (more correctly understood as the spouse's right to object to being placed in a radically altered marriage contract without their consent) risks leaving women screwed financially because the financial implications have never been properly articulated.

The idea that transitioning constitutes "unreasonable behaviour" in and of itself is transphobic. (Yes, you read that right, bear with me.) This is not to deny that other related activities, such as redirecting jointly-owned savings to surgery and clothing, could be unreasonable. The point I'm not making well is that someone seeking medical help for what the medical community currently recognises as a diagnosable disorder isn't inherently being unreasonable.

What is unconscionable is for the transistioning spouse to have a legal right to unilaterally alter the fundamental terms of the marriage. The spousal consent requirement is meant to prevent that and must be retained in some form. A trans widow PP suggested that the GRC request should trigger an automatic divorce and I think a swift, automatic, and no-fault divorce is the fairest way to resolve this very clear conflict of rights. I read a piece by someone (it might have been Greer) who noted that annulment pretends that the marriage never happened, retrospectively turning children born in wedlock into bastards and chaste wives into fornicatrices. A PP raised questions about financial liability in cases of annulment, I have other questions: if a child inherits clan membership or a title through its mother's husband, does annulment strip that inheritance? (The same question re citizenship was rendered moot as of 2015 by changes to immigration law.) A no-fault divorce ends the marriage without apportioning blame, whilst acknowledging that the marriage happened.

If the couple wish to remain married, could they remarry the day the divorce takes effect? I note the transwidow PP's concern that a statutory declaration made during the marriage could be coerced.

What's really important, having seen how the GRA and EA interact with each other and other legislation, is that the automatic divorce must be baked into the text of the GRA during any reform and not set aside as "that will be covered by the divorce law reforms when we make divorce easier across the board". Trans widows need to have protection of their marriage rights in the law that governs transitioning so that other changes to divorce law don't impact upon them. Transitioning is a special case, no other medical or legal decision redefines the basis of the marriage in this way.