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?

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

Really? So that allows people to use disablist insults does it? I don't think you should call anyone "slow" regardless of whether they have disabilities or not because those sorts of words are harmful. Very similar to the way school children throw "gay" around the playground as an insult. It doesn't matter if the intended victim us gay or not, or gas annoyed you or not.

Doesn't an annulment make any children of that marriage illegitimate?

No it doesn't.

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.

But then a spouse who has been cheated on didn't consent to be in an unfaithful marriage. A spouse whose partner comes out as gay didn't consent to be in a marriage with a gay partner. Those situations don't command an annulment. Who decides which scenario is the more painful?

Any number of circumstances can fundamentally change the nature of the marriage such that it is no longer the one that you consented to be in. Why was this subject in particular made a special case?

I don't think that their partner should have to delay their transition while this is happening, no

Oh fgs. They don't bloody have to delay their transition. That has been explained umpteen times as well.

The transitioning partner gets their interim GRC. The transinitiong partner can initiate the annulment (or quick divorce in Scotland)

No it doesn't.

That's interesting. Doesn't an annulment effectively mean that the marriage never happened?

The transinitiong partner can initiate the annulment (or quick divorce in Scotland)

So could they get an annulment without the consent of their spouse? Do they not have to separate finances and division of assets as they do in a divorce?

But then a spouse who has been cheated on didn't consent to be in an unfaithful marriage. A spouse whose partner comes out as gay didn't consent to be in a marriage with a gay partner. Those situations don't command an annulment. Who decides which scenario is the more painful

It has damn all to do with being "painful". Marriage is a contract. Being unfaithful or gay does not change the person's legal status. A GRC does.

So, if the marriage certificate wasn't changed retrospectively this wouldn't be an issue? If the marriage certificate remained then people would accept having to go through the standard divorce process?

How do they issue a new certificate? Doesn't everyone have to sign it again or do they somehow digitally change one partners name and sex?

This might be helpful:

What happens to children of an annulled marriage is something that needs to be worked out between the two parents and the courts.[widgetsonpages id="In Post Ad"] An annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marriage never happened: the two people were never actually married in the eyes of the Church because certain conditions failed to be met upon entering into the marriage. The purpose of marriage is to bring one’s spouse to heaven and for the bearing and raising of children, a person might consider that if a sacramental marriage did not exist then what about the children? Are the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate?

Legitimacy is a legal concept dealing primarily with inheritance. There is nothing illegitimate about children of an annulled marriage in the eyes of the Church. They can still receive the sacraments, i.e. they can be baptized, receive communion, get married or become a priest, receive confirmation, et cetera.

Just reading and losing the will to live. I know I know, I don't have to look, I could just go elsewhere, but has anyone else seen my grey rock?

One good thing about olympic levels of obtuseness being displayed on this, is that other Mumsnetters who only had a nodding acquaintance with this legislation are now very well read on it, so that's brilliant.

I give you that, Tinsel. Learned a lot.

Indeed tinsel, many thanks to all

Legitimacy is a legal concept dealing primarily with inheritance. There is nothing illegitimate about children of an annulled marriage in the eyes of the Church. They can still receive the sacraments, i.e. they can be baptized, receive communion, get married or become a priest, receive confirmation, et cetera

Under the law of England and Wales and Scotland illegitimacy has no legal standing on inheritance other than inheriting nobility titles- not property.

The Scottish Parliament actually abolished the concept in 2006.

"No person who is governed by Scots law shall be illegitimate" is part of Scots law.

I think we're in danger of confusing religious annulments with legal annulments here. I don't know much about them but I suspect they're not exactly the same thing.

I think we're in danger of confusing religious annulments with legal annulments here. I don't know much about them but I suspect they're not exactly the same thing

A declaration of nullity from the Catholic church will not, in the UK, legally annul a marriage. A Catholic friend of mine who was divorced was encouraged by her priest to have her marriage annulled so that she could, if she wanted to, remarry as a Catholic. Obviously so far as Civil law is concerned she could remarry.

Here are the details of the legal / non-religious criteria for an annulment under English law:

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

I've now got sidetracked reading the interesting history of bastardy laws.

The item posted up thread looked like a religious thing, I doubt it is much relevance for law in England Wales. References to sacraments etc!

Copying and pasting from another thread.

"A marriage is a contract. If one party wishes to change the terms of the contract then either the other party agrees, or the contract is voided."

"And it is a change of terms. Statutory grounds for divorce of a mixed-sex couple include adultery. A same-sex couple does not have adultery as grounds for divorce."

The marriage is declared voidable, not invalid. The children are still legitimate and property must be divided. The immediate annulment means that no new falsified marriage certificate or record will show the non-transitioning spouse to have married a wrong-sex-for-them partner. The annulment is voiding a contract and preventing the transitioning spouse from unilaterally rewriting the history of the non-transitioning spouse.

Would contract law tolerate the unilateral change of a key term (in this case, the statement of infidelity as grounds for immediate divorce) of a signed agreement? Why is marriage, which is not only a contract but an institution protected by international human rights laws, somehow different in the eyes of those who object to the requirement that the non-transitioning spouse consent to remaining married?

But on marriage the contract that you also enter in to is to forsake all others. So if one partner has an affair then they've broken the contract. The remedy to that is divorce, not annulment.

So this can't just be about changing the terms of the contract. I can understand it in terms of not wanting the original certificate re written to show a same sex marriage (if that is what happens, though same sex marriage wasn't legal 20 years ago so how can that happen?)

But on marriage the contract that you also enter in to is to forsake all others ? Is this a UK thing?

My marriage certficate does not state anything like this. My wedding vows did, but that has nothing to do with the official contract for my marriage. I am very interested to know about this aspect.

So, when you talk about the marriage contract you are only talking about the piece of paper that you sign?

If so, then how does this get changed? Are the bride, groom, witnesses, priest or registrar required to sign a new one or are some details just changed on the original one? If details are changed his does this work given same sex marriage wasn't legal until very recently?

Here for spoonfeeding duty.

'These words are at the start of the ceremony and must be included. The Declaratory Words are shown below:

I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I [name] may not be joined in matrimony to [name].

The Contracting Words
These are the legal words that marry you and these feature towards the end of the ceremony. The Contracting Words are shown below:

I call upon these persons here present, to witness that I [name] do take thee [name] to be my lawful wedded wife / wife-husband / husband.

Additional words can be added before or after the contracting words to complete your wedding vows'

The legal contract if formed by saying the above in front of witnesses and registrar.

The other words are traditional/ religious/ embellishments for romance etc etc.

Anyone who has got married in England Wales knows this as it's spelt out very clearly (possibly by law so people understand what forms the contract and when).