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?

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.

True! But isn't it weird how this one clause gets so much attention? The whole GRA is a badly thought-out piece of legislation - changing people's birth certificates according to their gender feelings is just batshit.
I bet the next move is to change the law so that children's birth certificates can be updated with father's new identity as 'mother' (or vice versa).

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

No. It might be a religious thing for some but is certainly not a requirement to make the contract. Infidelity is one of the aspects which might make the spouse's behaviour unacceptable but that's all.

but honestly, hooves, do you really think that if a woman says she'll 'honour and obey' her husband that she's bound by some sort of verbal contract to actually do that, that her husband can divorce her for breaking the contract for not doing as he tells her?

Well I didn't promise to obey, I had the words changed so I don't see those as a legal part of the marriage contract.

I genuinely thought that the promises made during the ceremony were what formed the "contract" that people are talking about.

Can none of you see how confusing this is though? In the last page alone someone had posted the terms of an annulment, followed by someone else disputing them. Then another has posted that adultery is not a reason for divorce in same sex marriages and now someone else posts to say that isn't true. I'm obviously not the only person confused on here.

Any one want more legal explanation?

There is a gender recognition marriage register and a gender recognition civil partnership register.

Essentially once a party has a GRC they can record their marriage/cp in the appropriate register under their new name/"gender", and therefore obtain a copy of the entry (commonly known as a marriage certificate) with the new details on.

All other details remain the same, except that if the marriage "becomes" same sex the date of the marriage cannot be recorded as having taken place before same sex marriage became legal in 2014. Likewise if a civil partnership "becomes" mixed sex I don't think the date can be before 2 December 2019, when mixed sex CPs came in.

There is no need for either party to sign anything.

This is the relevant legislation (although this is it's unamended version and some changes have been made to it since).

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/50/contents/made?f00009

No.

It is explained very thoroughly by the registrar what forms the contract in a marriage in England and Wales. Including that it is the words that form the contract-the words above. It is very very clear.

TBF I don't know about religious ceremonies but I would put money on the officiating person having to make clear these points by law. As they are contractually binding.

All other details remain the same, except that if the marriage "becomes" same sex the date of the marriage cannot be recorded as having taken place before same sex marriage became legal in 2014.

So does this mean that a couple who say married in 1985 would now be recorded as having got married in 2020? It will 2 records exist ie the 1975 one and a new one with name name in 2020?

Is this not all a bit mad? Why would not old records stand and if the couple choose to stay together, and want the relationship recognised, then they can enter into the gender recognition marriage register? Do both parties not have to consent to the marriage being recorded on this register?

These are all very very frequently used laws etc that are freely available with a quick Google and top result.

It's not esoteric stuff or tricky.

There are many reasons the govt wants these laws around marriage to be clear and understood.

I got married more than a decade ago and they spelt out what words formed the contract loads. Because they are the only ones that have to be exactly right to bind the two people together in a contract of marriage.

Like I say, very very freely available info which is spelt out. Because it's important. Because it's a legal contract.

TBF I don't know about religious ceremonies but I would put money on the officiating person having to make clear these points by law. As they are contractually binding.

I was married in church. The vicar made clear that the vows were legally binding but certainly didn't highlight one or two lines out of all of our vows. It was my belief that it was the whole of the vows that formed the marriage contract.

Is this not all a bit mad?

Yes. The GRA itself is a bit mad, so everything associated with it is also insane.

Well you were misled then.

Contact your vicar.

Refer to the relevant laws rather than your personal experience/ what you remember

Is my advice

When talking on a thread about legalities.

Yes Hooves. It is "a bit mad". Maybe because the idea that someone can "change sex" is"a bit mad". And the GRA is "a bit mad", especially now we have full marriage and pension equity and so there really is no need for GRCs.

So the whole bloody system is completely mad. And will be even madder if self id ever comes in.

(I don't think the marriage has to enter the gender recognition register. It's available if people want to create a fictional account of their own wedding.)

Long dead I'm afraid. Much of the lecture about the sanctity of the marriage centred around being married in the eyes of God, only a brief mention of it being legally binding. The only but that was really laboured was when they ask if anyone has any objections - the vicar did stress to us that no one should even murmur during this part as the wedding has to be stopped. Definitely did t highlight anything else as being the legal part.

Refer to the relevant laws rather than your personal experience/ what you remember

Well I will do now that I've been made aware of it. Bit difficult to know something that you don't know isn't it?

The other thing that is "a bit mad"* is that on getting a GRC a birth certificate can be amended so that a different sex is recorded. Even if the birth took place before the GRA came into force. So a baby born in 1975 recorded as male "becomes" female.

• Aka completely batshit

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.

You're conflating breach of terms with unilateral change of terms.

The marriage contract is governed by statute. Infidelity is defined as grounds for immediate divorce in a mixed-sex marriage by statute, but not in a same-sex marriage. Matrimonal Causes Act 1973, Section 1, Para 6 explicitly excludes infidelity as grounds for divorce of same-sex couples.

So a transitioning spouse seeking to change legal sex is going to unilaterally change whether that section 1 paragraph 6 provision applies to their marriage. I'll repeat that in simpler words: the transitioning spouse is unilaterally changing which laws govern their marriage.

It's a violation of the non-transitioning spouse's right to freedom from forced marriage to deny them an annulment or instant divorce to evade that change imposed by the transitioning spouse.

But Spartacus upthread has said that isn't true - they both have infidelity as grounds for divorce.

'Well I will do now that I've been made aware of it. Bit difficult to know something that you don't know isn't it?'

The legal requirements around legally binding a contract of marriage in England and Wales (and no doubt other jurisdictions) is long standing and freely available.

Given all your posts on this thread I'm surprised that you haven't looked into the actual laws around marriage divorce annulment etc. They are very straightforwardly laid out on official sites and easily available on the net.

If are going on your own personal experience in your parish for your wedding from X years ago no wonder you're so confused.

Maybe read up on it some more.

Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.

Does not say what I thought it said. I read it as applying to opposite-sex marriages. It's not: it's defining adultery as only meaning opposite-sex extramarital shenanigans.

I've spent the last six years misreading that.

SIX FUCKING YEARS.

The grounds for divorce are separate laws to those that form the marriage contract.

The marriage contract laws have been around for you yonks.

Two legal declarations as noted upthread. It is a legal contract. Divorce is a separate piece of legislation.

Read the links.

Infidelity is defined as grounds for immediate divorce in a mixed-sex marriage by statute, but not in a same-sex marriage. Matrimonal Causes Act 1973, Section 1, Para 6 explicitly excludes infidelity as grounds for divorce of same-sex couples.

That's not how I interpret it. It says:
Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.

I think this is to do with the definition of adultery - it has to be between a man and a woman. So if a woman in a same-sex marriage has a sexual relationship with a man, her wife can divorce her for adultery. If she has a relationship with another woman, it is not classed as adultery. But this works in the same way in a mixed-sex marriage.

Interesting, but way off the topic of this thread.

OK, so the transitioning spouse is switching the set of people they have to shag in order to commit adultery, but that's not quite the same level of whatthefuckery as changing which laws apply to a marriage.

I can't believe that I have misread that paragraph for six sodding years.

When I was studying law (around the time civil partnerships came in), our lecturer said that adultery had to be between people of the opposite sex because the courts had avoided getting in to what constitutes intercourse between two people of the same sex. This is why adultery wasn't grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership.

I didn't know whether this had changed with same sex marriage so what I did, and this is a tip for you Hooves, I googled it. It looks like adultery still has to be with somebody of the opposite sex.

If you were in a same sex marriage and your spouse shagged somebody else of the same sex you'd have to divorce them for unreasonable behaviour.

Of course this has nothing to do with the spousal exit clause, but it's interesting.

I've spent the last six years misreading that.

Do you think you're now going to be accused of being "slow" too or told to go and read all the information so freely and readily available on line rather than relying on people here to correct your misapprehensions?