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?

I suspect this is also going to become much more of an issue now that all the progressive people are lauding those husbands when they go public with their private obsession. AWA will claim it's because there is more understanding so these husbands feel able to be their true selves. Others with less dewy eyes will see that lots of private obsessionists will now see they get extra kicks by going public, and their can't gaslight every single woman into standing by her man. So getting this financial/divorce issue sorted seems imperative.

bd67th the GRA needs to be abolished

The idea that transitioning constitutes "unreasonable behaviour" in and of itself is transphobic. (Yes, you read that right, bear with me.)

Do you think the man on the street, or the courts would still think that, if it was explained to them that the transitioner is voluntarily going to render themselves:

1. Infertile so the wife won't be able to have any more children
2. Invaluable of normal marital sexual relations?

The lies, secrecy etc are the sort of things you can put in an unreasonable behaviour petition.
(Although I put the decision to transition in too).

Incalpable, not invaluable - autocorrect.

My worst dystopian nightmare would be where institutional capture leads to a definition of "unreasonable behaviour" which is a wife being "transphobic" by not waving pom-poms for her husband's transition.

Which is why I think the angle to pursue (in an ideal world where people decided on changes in law in a sensible way rather than being led by bonkers activists) would be to say "this is a contract, and the parties to the contract entered into it under a certain understanding of the material facts - het couple, gay couple. Therefore if one party attempts to change basis on which the contract was entered into, the contract should be up for renegotiation/dissolution via divorce, and the financial and legal issues round that decision should protect both parties - equitable disbursement of assets, child maintenance, children not being rendered illegitimate by the end of the contract."

1. Infertile so the wife won't be able to have any more children

That's assuming that the couple are opposite-sex, that the transitioner is male, and that neither have already been sterilised.

Would a woman using LARC or getting her tubes tied without her husband's consent be grounds for divorce? Would a man getting the snip without his wife's consent be grounds for divorce? At what point do personal medical decisions become grounds for divorce?

2. Incapable of normal marital sexual relations?

I'm assuming you mean PIV because the husband loses his erections or even penis. A wife becomes unable to have PIV because she has vaginismus or recurrent cystitis, is that grounds for divorce? And where do same-sex couples fit into this?

I know of a couple where the already-sterilised wife transitioned. The arguments you made do not apply to them and so according to you, the wife's transition would not be "unreasonable behaviour", yet the husband (the allegedly-mythical transwidower) was still unwilling to remain married to someone who would be legally a man. Transitioning of married female adults is rare, but the law needs to accommodate it.

the GRA needs to be abolished

I often think that myself. The problem is that if we do that, by what means do trans widows and widowers escape marriages quickly without substantial changes to divorce law that may have unintended side-effects?

Would a woman using LARC or getting her tubes tied without her husband's consent be grounds for divorce? Would a man getting the snip without his wife's consent be grounds for divorce?

The answer to the above might be "yes because you lied to me about wanting (more) kids, it's not the deed that's unreasonable but the lie" but we need to consider very carefully the unintended consequences of making medical decisions (and legal decisions that accompany medical decisions, such as getting a GRC) grounds for automatic annulment or divorce, lest the breast cancer survivor finds herself divorced or her marriage annulled because her husband wants a wife with breasts. (After reading the comments BTL when Angelina Jolie had a preventative double mastectomy, I have no doubt that some men would do that.)

Worth remembering that the current spousal veto wasn't written to apply to same sex marriage.

Would a woman using LARC or getting her tubes tied without her husband's consent be grounds for divorce? Would a man getting the snip without his wife's consent be grounds for divorce? At what point do personal medical decisions become grounds for divorce?

Hmmmmm I would have thought so.

I'm assuming you mean PIV because the husband loses his erections or even penis. A wife becomes unable to have PIV because she has vaginismus or recurrent cystitis, is that grounds for divorce? And where do same-sex couples fit into this?

That's a medical issue, and not within the person's control. I'm fairly sure divorces do follow on from problems like this. It would apply even more so if a person chooses to have surgery to end the sexual relationship they'd previously had with their spouse.

Worth remembering that the current spousal veto wasn't written to apply to same sex marriage.

Yet it now does because of the changes to marriage law. Changes in one law can affect how another is applied, this is why I think that the effects of transition on marriage vows should be governed by the same law that governs transition.

That's a medical issue, and not within the person's control. I'm fairly sure divorces do follow on from problems like this

But not automatic annulments. And I doubt that it would be possible to cite "unreasonable behaviour". My point is that transitioning as a set of medical decisions isn't in and of itself unreasonable because medical decisions aren't unreasonable.

It would apply even more so if a person chooses to have surgery to end the sexual relationship they'd previously had with their spouse.

Depends whether the surgery is seen as a choice or as a suicide-preventing necessity.

I think there may be a mismatch here between my understanding of "unreasonable" and that of others. To me, "unreasonable behaviour" is abusive. Verbal abuse, physical assault, one spouse treating the other like a servant, that kind of thing. I am very uncomfortable with framing any kind of medical decision as "unreasonable" because I can see how easily that would backfire onto women.

Upthread, BarbaraStrozzi frames transition as a material change to the terms of the marriage vows and that's how I see it. "Jane Jones, do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband" the hint is the sexed natured of the bolded words. In reality the man cannot change sex, but he wants us all, including his wife, to pretend that he has done and this desire for pretence is materially changing the marriage terms.

And I doubt that it would be possible to cite "unreasonable behaviour

It is. I've done it.

To me, "unreasonable behaviour" is abusive.

That's not the definition in law though.

The idea that transitioning constitutes "unreasonable behaviour" in and of itself is transphobic.

Of course it isn't. The context is that a marriage contract was made between man and wife.
Its totally unreasonable for a man to decide his wife must stop defining herself as a heterosexual woman.
Its totally unreasonable for the man you married to demand you identify as a lesbian.

www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/unreasonable-behaviour-divorce/

To me, "unreasonable behaviour" is abusive.

That's not the definition in law though.

Thanks for the blog link. That's a very wide definition, much wider than I expected. I would never have expected working overtime to be grounds for divorce.

Inebriati It's altering the material facts of the marriage, which is where the spousal "veto" in current GRA comes from. I wouldn't characterise it as being like working overtime or spending every weekend fishing.

I think we are all agreed that trans widow(er)s absolutely must have a fast way out of a marriage that doesn't make their children bastards. I think we are quibbling over the legal details of how to achieve that.

I think we are quibbling over the legal details of how to achieve that.

I'm not quibbling. I do think people should look the law up before stating an opinion based on a misunderstanding though.

Who the hell is there left to vote for now? None of them have a clue

I wonder how long until a late transitioning male, reports his wife who wants a divorce, to west yorkshire police for the hate crime of transphobia? If we're not careful, wanting to divorce a husband because they are trans could be considered a hate crime.

I do think people should look the law up before stating an opinion based on a misunderstanding though.

Yeah, that was careless on my part. I'm usually much more diligent.

we're not careful, wanting to divorce a husband because they are trans could be considered a hate crime.

Have you looked up the law to see if that would come under the definition of hate crime because it sounds unlikely to me?

*If we're not careful, wanting to divorce a husband because they are trans could be considered a hate crimes

Where is the crime here? There has to be a crime first before the motivation of hate makes it a hate crime.

the crime of transphobia-I know its far fetched but if we are being forced to see boys competing in womens sporting events who know whats around the corner.

In the guardian now. They make it sound as though the motion was all about the spousal veto. No mention of equal marriage at all.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/16/phillip-lee-says-record-on-lgbt-rights-has-been-misrepresented

Layla Moran MP, who is leading on the party’s equalities agenda, was instrumental in passing a new policy at conference on Saturday that would end trans peoples’ partners having a ‘veto’ over whether they can be legally recognised as their preferred gender.

“I’m really sad those campaigners, some of those who wrote the [spousal veto] amendment, feel that they can’t join in conference this year.”

Transphobia is not a crime, that is the ‘hate’ element.

OldCrone that is bizarre.

In the op link points 1-12 i think it was are about gay marriage. Then about spousal veto.

The actual motion puts gay marriage first.

But this is ignored in the guardian report. Are women and lbg just a bit old hat now?

If they're looking at NI then what about abortion? Or do they already have a policy around that?

I might google.

I used to be a member of libdem but ditched them when i realised that the main thing they wanted to liberalise was where men could stick their dicks. Way before all this stuff.