Spousal veto

[midgebabe]

So I have read various transwidow and spousal veto threads but am still struggling to understand why (rationally, not emotively) I should support the continuation of the spousal veto as it is commonly called (spousal untangling period). I guess because what I see on those threads is so much mixed up with hurt and abuse.

I am starting the thread because if it isn’t clear to me then I suspect it would be difficult to make the case to others outside of the feminist community.

I have seen

It’s necessary for women who’s religion does not allow divorce…but that to me is a wider problem than just transition …what happens to those women in DV cases etc

No one should be forced into a lesbian marriage ..which seems homophobic , like what’s wrong with lesbian marriage. I guess I also struggle here because whilst the words have changed once the legal process has completed, the person hasn’t

If we take out abuse, people changing beyond recognition, someone using the transition as a way to bully/taunt the other person, why should one legal process be dependent on the other?

Or is it rarely possible to take abuse out of this? Even if people may not be totally happy, there are cases where people have stayed together "in sickness and in health" , and their lack of joy may be related to viewing this as a health problem rather than an indication of abuse?

Hooves I wondered the same thing.

I read the thread carefully, and now I don't need to wonder any more because it's been explained.

I have read the thread. I understand the point that people are making about the nature of their marriage being changed against their will ie that the record is changed to say that it's a same sex marriage. I understand that.

What I don't understand is when some posters are saying that they are being forced to stay in a marriage that they don't want to be in or that they should have the right to a divorce if their partner is trans. The law is not compelling people to stay married is it? Divorce is not banned in these circumstances.

I understand that divorce is expensive, you might not want to get divorced etc. But that's the same for any spouse who finds that their marriage has broken down - a partner cheats, or leaves or decides that they want a divorce and you don't.

I understand all.of the feelings around this. The only thing I don't understand is posters saying that they should be allowed to divorce - you can, just as anyone can.

Hooves do you think a person should have to wait 5 years before they are able to transition?

Oh I see Hooves. Your issue is not with the Spousal Escape Clause itself, but rather with the way you think some posters have phrased their posts?

Op here, thanks all. Sorry about my lack of participation ( know I got at'd which I haven't replied to ) got crappy virus so mostly sleeping, trying to follow , since I wanted to understand not promote any specific opinion

What I don't understand is when some posters are saying that they are being forced to stay in a marriage that they don't want to be in or that they should have the right to a divorce if their partner is trans. The law is not compelling people to stay married is it? Divorce is not banned in these circumstances.

The sticking point seems to be Hooves not quite following the logic that the spouse should be able to divorce PRIOR to being forced to be in a same sex marriage:

• That they should NOT FOR EVEN A SINGLE DAY be forced to be in same sex marriage.
• That the LEGAL ISSUES that come with divorce post GRA means that the spouse has more difficulty getting a divorce

Nobody wants to stop anyone getting a GRA, but nobody should be forced to stay in the subsequent marriage if they don't want to. Logic, and common courtesy, says therefore, that the couple should consensually divorce and then both go on their merry way. Why anyone should try to stop that happening has another agenda... maybe hooves you could wonder what that agenda might be!

I don't think there is an agenda per se. I think this is just being seen as a reason for divorce, as any other reason is seen, and that the same process is followed.

Thinking about it I think I see this in the same way as I do about abortion. We all agree that a woman is the only person who decides whether she has an abortion or not, even though her decision affects the status of the father. She has an abortion and he does not become a father. She chooses to have the child and he becomes a father. In both scenarios the man might not want it to happen but none of us here would argue that he should have any rights over that decision. I feel the same here. The person choosing to transition should have the right to do that, without opposition from their spouse. What if the spouse refuses to engage in the divorce/annulment process? Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission? What if the couple were separated long before the trans process began? Possibly in other relationships but not divorced? Does the spouse still have the right to hold the process up?

I understand that it is painful for the spouse but then so are many other reasons for divorce but the legal process still has to be followed. I just can't see why this is a special case. A spouse may well do other very painful things that fundamentally change the nature of the marriage - go and get a vasectomy when they knew their wife wanted a child for example. The divorce process would still have to be followed though wouldn't it?

But there is no contract for parenthood.

Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission?

No permission is required for transition. But from your statement I think you’ve answered my earlier question (Hooves do you think a person should have to wait 5 years before they are able to transition?) in the negative.

So, you think a person should be able to transition asap, but because you also believe that there should be no special allowance made for the the non transitioning person to divorce or annul asap, they could be forced to remain in a marriage for up to 5 years, all the while unable to seperate finances, or possibly sell the family home so they can at least live separately.

For you the transitioning spouse takes absolute precedence and should have the rights to totally change a marriage contract and hold their spouse to that contract for another, possibly, 5 years.

Yikes.

What if the spouse refuses to engage in the divorce/annulment process?

The transitioning spouse can use their interim GRC to start the annulment process themself.

Does the person going through transition have to wait endlessly until the spouse gives permission?

No, the transitioning spouse can use their interim GRC to start the annulment process themself.

What if the couple were separated long before the trans process began?

Either spouse can apply for annulment when the interim GRC is granted.

Possibly in other relationships but not divorced?

Either spouse can apply for annulment when the interim GRC is granted.

Does the spouse still have the right to hold the process up?

The spouse does not have this right. The transitioning spouse must either get consent from their spouse for the marriage to continue or they must end the marriage. That is the process. It's just as quick whichever spouse applies for the annulment.

HTH

HTH

Helped me! Thanks 😊

A spouse may well do other very painful things that fundamentally change the nature of the marriage - go and get a vasectomy when they knew their wife wanted a child for example.

This does not fundamentally change the nature of the marriage.

I don't think there is an agenda per se. I think this is just being seen as a reason for divorce, as any other reason is seen, and that the same process is followed. You're ignoring the core of what I wrote! Even the bits that state clearly the VERY SAME thoughts as those you post in reply!

Why is that?

The spouse has no ability to stop (or veto) the transition. Or even hold it up. As has been repeatedly explained.

This is purely and simply about the spouse's right at this point to exit the marriage if they want to, before the legal terminology of their marriage is changed.

I honestly have no clue what your point is, Hooves . I'm not that sure you know what your point is either.

My confusion comes from the different statements made on this thread.

Some posters use the term veto, then others state that it isn't a veto, but the term veto is still being used.

Some posters are saying they shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage, others saying they should be able to get a divorce if they want it - both of these statements suggest that divorce is not allowed which clearly isn't the case.

Do, there's my confusion. Is it, or is it not a veto? Can you, or can you not divorce?

Do, there's my confusion. Is it, or is it not a veto?
No

Can you, or can you not divorce?
It depends on your circumstances.

HTH.

Typing this really slowly for you Hooves:

Is it, or is it not a veto?

Everyone should stop calling it a veto. It's not a veto it's an exit clause.

Can you, or can you not divorce?

An interim GRC is grounds for annulment. It is not grounds for divorce.

To be fair this is a complex issue, that's why the TRAs have been able to misrepresent it. However carefully we explain it, there's always the possibility we will reach the outer limits of some people's comprehension. (™️FloralBunting).

An interim GRC is grounds for annulment. It is not grounds for divorce.

From the document linked to earlier by Pencils.

An interim GRC is valid for a period of six months from the date on which it is issued. It may be used as evidence if either member of the couple chooses to end their marriage or civil partnership on the basis that an interim GRC has been issued to a party to the marriage or civil partnership, following which the court will issue a full GRC. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a marriage may be annulled or the civil partnership dissolved on this ground. In Scotland, a decree of divorce may be granted on this ground but there the 6 months limit does not apply.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786910/t455-eng.pdf

So in Scotland it is grounds for divorce, but not in the rest of the UK.

Some posters are saying they shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage, others saying they should be able to get a divorce if they want it - both of these statements suggest that divorce is not allowed which clearly isn't the case.

Hooves this has been explained many times, but I'll try once more. It's also about when the divorce takes place.

Should the spouse have the right to exit the marriage before that marriage changes from opposite sex to same sex or vice versa?

Should the right of the transitioning spouse to change their birth certificate and the nature of their marriage override the right of the non-transitioning spouse not to have the nature of their marriage changed against their will?

Should the non-transitioning spouse have the right to divorce before everything gets more complex (and more expensive) by the transitioner changing their name and legally recognised sex?

Some posters use the term veto, then others state that it isn't a veto, but the term veto is still being used

I can't be bothered reading back but I definitely posted that it was NOT A VETO. I think I specifically said to you to stop calling it a veto.

Why are you persisting with this wide-eyed," I don't understand" routine. It's getting very tiresome.