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?

Why are you persisting with this wide-eyed," I don't understand" routine.

It could be intended to encourage the casual reader to conclude this must be a topic far too difficult for mere mortals to understand, so the dominant narrative (manufactured by TRA's) must be correct.

PencilsInSpace

Rather than make sarcastic and quite honestly disablist comments to me " typing really slowly for Hooves" why aren't you being equally rude to all of the posters who continue to call it a veto, thus perpetuating the confusion?

OldCrone

I think the spouse should have every right to legally separate and start divorce proceedings as soon as they want. I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no.

I'm confused by the argument that once the spouse has changed their name things get more expensive. I could change my name by deed poll tomorrow. Presumably if my DH then wanted a divorce we would have the same expense and difficulties so should a spouse be able to stop a partner from changing their name regardless of future potential difficulties?

I'm curious to know what happens if the partner doesn't apply for an interim GRC? Presumably this isn't complusory and so then the spouse still has to go through the standard divorce proceedings.

I don't understand why the marriage certificate is changed tbh. At the time of the marriage the people were X and y. The fact that later y changes to w doesn't change anything, but if that's the process then so be it.

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.

Because many posters on here are persisting in calling it a veto, including some of the ones who are having a go at me now! How do I know which of you are correct? Maybe it's the ones calling it a veto who are right and those of you saying it isn't are wrong?

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

It's not a "wide eyed routine" - I don't understand.

Is it the difference between a divorce and annulment that is causing the confusion?

How do I know which of you are correct?

When I have this type of dilemma, I tend to go back to primary sources and endeavour to draw my own conclusions rather than demanding to be spoon fed. The document linked up thread by Pencils is a good place to start.

I think the spouse should have every right to legally separate and start divorce proceedings as soon as they want. I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no.

How many times do you need to be told that they don't need to 'delay their transition' while the divorce/annulment is being settled. During this time they can take hormones/have surgery/change their appearance in whatever way they want to.

The only thing which is delayed is getting a GRC, which as every TRA will tell you is just a minor bit of admin.

Now do you understand?

I'm curious to know what happens if the partner doesn't apply for an interim GRC? Presumably this isn't complusory and so then the spouse still has to go through the standard divorce proceedings.

Well if they haven't applied for a GRC then none of this applies. I don't know what you mean by 'apply for an interim GRC'. I thought an interim GRC was issued to someone who has applied for a GRC and who is married so that they can start the annulment process.

But perhaps you know more about this than I do.

It's called a veto because that is an emotive word that obfuscates what is actually happening. What it actually is is a hesitation... to allow both parties to sort out how to ends marriage when the non trans partner does not want to be paperworked into a same sex marriage.

That temporary stop is the veto... It stops the trans person doing things at their own pace. It forces them to compromise, to acknowledge their partner's wishes.

What the pinknews etc want is for there to be no impediment. Further they have mooted that a partner who transes should not itself be one of the reasons for divorce!

As has been said, repeatedly, it makes better sense, legally and otherwise, to acknowledge the end of the marriage prior to a GRC being finalised. That's it, in a nutshell

Well if they haven't applied for a GRC then none of this applies. I don't know what you mean by 'apply for an interim GRC'. I thought an interim GRC was issued to someone who has applied for a GRC and who is married so that they can start the annulment process.

So they don't apply for a GRC then. The spouse still then has to go through a standard divorce which could, potentially, take 5 years. So is the only argument that the spouse doesn't want their marriage certificate altered?

I'm not sure how getting an annulment, which basically means that the marriage never happened, is better than divorcing a partner who has legally changed their sex. Doesn't an annulment make any children of that marriage illegitimate? Does anyone doing this ask their children how they feel about that?

Would you say if someone says "I will never marry an Indian" that there might be an element of racism in there?

Realise I’m late to the thread but I have to comment on this. Having a preference is not racism. Can’t help who I find ugly and who I don’t. My partner might be ugly to many others but to me he isn’t for example.

Good lord, can you imagine the children of a man who transitioned having 'becoming illegitimate' as a big traumatizing factor?

I mean, I think the fact that they have to try and come to terms with their father perhaps wanting them to call him mum, changing his appearance and demeanour, and very likely their mum being very upset by the situation, and the break up of their parents marriage. Are we seriously trying to leverage transwidows into not using their rights to end a changed marital contract because of some long forgotten stigma of 'illegitimacy'?

It's like a Victorian Melodrama.

So they don't apply for a GRC then. The spouse still then has to go through a standard divorce which could, potentially, take 5 years.

If they don't apply for a GRC, then whether or not spousal consent is required before someone gets a GRC is irrelevant.

I don't know what your point is, apart from trying to get people to answer the same question over and over.

If you have an additional need and need posters to explain in a particular way then say so rather than throw around random accusations of disablism. The experience of people trying to help at this point is of highly pedantic obtuseness to the point of querying whether you are posting in good faith.

What do you want here Hooves ? What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like women shouldn't have the easy and immediate route to leave a marriage at the point their spouse wishes to wholly change the contract and they no longer agree to be part of it.

And now you've added that the woman shouldn't get her marriage annulled because Think of the children.

You make it sound as if you believe the only thing women should do is meet everyone else's needs, and their own needs and feelings should come last if at all. And you believe in removing the exit clause to make life harder for women.

It should be added, it's not the spouse that causes all this to happen, it's the transitioner, so any negative consequences are not the spouses fault.

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

If you have an additional need and need posters to explain in a particular way then say so rather than throw around random accusations of disablism.

I don't think anyone should have to declare their medical history or disability in order to avoid insults such as "slow" being thrown around do you?

I'm not trying to say anything. I was trying to be able to understand the position, which I was finding difficult given the opposing views being posted - it is a veto, it isn't a veto, you can get divorced, you can't get divorced, you can get an annulment and so on.

I agree that it is a very very difficult situation. I still can't see how it is more difficult than other situations that lead to divorce and why there should be special processes applied. The annulment in particular seems quite strange to me but then the ability to re write the marriage certificate seems equally strange.

I'm not trying to say anything. I was trying to be able to understand the position, which I was finding difficult given the opposing views being posted - it is a veto, it isn't a veto, you can get divorced, you can't get divorced, you can get an annulment and so on.

I suggest you read this and if there is anything in it you don't understand, quote the bits you don't understand, and ask people who do to help you.

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

The problem is that we need better divorce laws, trans issues are a mere tiny element, 6 month waiting period for a no fault divorce is what is needed, no accusations required ... I'm considering filing for unreasonable behaviour because I don't want to wait another 18 months

okiedokieme

I completely agree with you. In the overall scheme of things, this must account for a relatively small number of divorces. There will be people trapped in lengthy divorce proceedings hurting just as much,if not more, but without recourse to fast track annulments.

As a disabled person I don't expect other people to magically know how to help or accommodate me unless I ask them. That's a bit different from disclosing anything, it's just basic manners if I need accommodation, they're not psychic.

And if my behaviour is starting to annoy people, I don't expect them to just never lose patience with me either.

I don't want anyone to evidence anything. My biggest sticking point here were multiple posters saying that it's unfair to be trapped in a same sex marriage against there will. I couldn't understand this because we have divorce in this country.

All I needed was someone to say that what those posters meant was that they wanted to get an annulment rather than go through the divorce process. Instead they posted that they are trapped in these marriages, which isn't true is it?

Michelleoftheresistance

You shouldn't have to disclose anything, ask for special consideration etc in order to avoid other posters chucking around labels such as slow either.

I think that largely depends on how much you've annoyed them with pedanticism.

But whatever. I'm out.

My biggest sticking point here were multiple posters saying that it's unfair to be trapped in a same sex marriage against there will. I couldn't understand this because we have divorce in this country.

Without the spousal exit clause they would be trapped in a same-sex marriage until the divorce is finalised. Because divorces don't happen instantaneously.

Why do I feel as though I've posted the same answers to the same questions about 50 times?

I assume everyone else who has read this has now fully understood why removing this clause is unfair to women. So that's a positive result of the endless repetition.

There will be people trapped in lengthy divorce proceedings hurting just as much,if not more, but without recourse to fast track annulments

The GRC issue aside an annulment is very different from a divorce and only applies in limited circumstances- basically that the marriage is legally void or avoidable.Our legislature has decided that "changing sex" is such a fundamental change that a GRC should fall within that limited range.

A spouse in a heterosexual marriage did not consent to being in a same sex marriage; a spouse in a same sex marriage did not consent to being in a heterosexual marriage.