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?

Divorce is a separate piece of legislation.

Yes, but divorce laws define how one may lawfully end a marriage, so they are relevant to a discussion on ending marriages.

It's no way to live one's life, never looking anything up for oneself, but rather desperately asking everyone around you questions, then getting stressed out if you get contradictory answers. It must be exhausting.

Two pages behind.

I am very sorry if you felt I was being disablist Hooves, that was most definitely not my intention.

I did not call you slow, I said I was typing slowly. I said that because my impression from your posts is that you are deliberately being slow to understand.

I was irritated by what I perceive to be your deliberate, obtuse, pedantic whataboutery and your continual wide-eyed reposting of questions that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people, many of whom clearly have more patience than me.

If you actually do have problems with comprehension and are not deliberately being an obtuse pedantic sealion then I wholeheartedly apologise and will bear this in mind going forward.

It's probably best for both of us if I don't directly engage with you ever again.

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?

I'm accusing myself of being an idiot and wondering how the fuck have I done that. I'm not going to twist if someone else does.

Spartacus has already posted a link to aforementioned information. You're not the only person who is getting corrected on stuff.

I was irritated by what I perceive to be your deliberate, obtuse, pedantic whataboutery and your continual wide-eyed reposting of questions that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people, many of whom clearly have more patience than me.

I'm confused because initially I didn't understand and this then became compounded by the many contradictory posts, illustrated very well over the last page. People are posting incorrect information it would seem and then others post in support of the incorrect information whilst others post contradicting it. I was trying to seek clarification so that I could understand, obviously that's the wrong thing to do on here.

Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other but one of whom is married to someone else.

A woman married to a man does not commit adultery by having sex with another woman. A man married to a woman does not commit adultery by having sex with another man. Their conduct might be indicative that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

A woman married to a woman who has sex with a man commits adultery. A man married to a man who has sex with a woman does too.

It is always sensible to ask for sources. It saves a lot of wasted time.

Erm, six years wasted here, through misreading the statute. I'm going to argue that there's a place for asking as well as reading sources, because legal English is clear as mud and you might misread it.

People are posting incorrect information it would seem and then others post in support of the incorrect information whilst others post contradicting it. I was trying to seek clarification so that I could understand, obviously that's the wrong thing to do on here.

After bd67th posted a link to the law on adultery as grounds for divorce, I went and looked at it, and interpreted it differently, which cleared up in my mind why two posters were posting different things about the same piece of legislation. By the time I posted my interpretation, bd67th had corrected hers and we all agreed.

You could have done the same Hooves, but instead continued to wail that people were posting conflicting interpretations of the law. Links are provided. Read them.

If you've read something that you don't understand, or if you're not sure if you're interpreting it correctly, it's OK to ask, and people here are generally helpful. You showed no signs of having read the links. That makes it look as though you don't really want to learn.

With so much focus on the spousal exit clause it's strange that tras have not focused more on the law in Northern Ireland.

Only TODAY has same sex marriage become legal in NI. Up until today a married person applying for a GRC would have had no choice but to end their marriage. I don't think the GRA has yet been amended to take account of this change.

It's very strange how there has been no debate around the law in NI and all the focus has instead been on the nasty mean transwidows in the rest of the UK who don't want their marriage contract changed without their consent.

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

I'm now getting a mental image of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

Only TODAY has same sex marriage become legal in NI.

Congratulations to our Northern Irish posters.

It's very strange how there has been no debate around the law in NI

It's like the TAs know how far they'd get trying wokeness in NI.

I don't think the GRA has yet been amended to take account of this change

Oh bloody hell thats a good point. It's difficult enough to decipher as it is because of all the amendments. I'd be happy never to have to read the bloody thing ever again. But then if I'd never read it, who would there be to tell Hooves what it says?

You could have done the same Hooves, but instead continued to wail that people were posting conflicting interpretations of the law. Links are provided. Read them.

Actually I did. I was trying to read through the link that bd67th posted.

If you've read something that you don't understand, or if you're not sure if you're interpreting it correctly, it's OK to ask, and people here are generally helpful. You showed no signs of having read the links. That makes it look as though you don't really want to learn.

Is it so difficult to understand that not everyone finds it easy to access often king and complicated texts? 10 years ago it would have been easy for me, now I've got no chance. By the time I've got to the bottom of the page I can't remember what was at the top. I also forget words and have word blindness so often all I see are letters on the page and can't understand them. But I guess that just makes me slow, or lazy, or goady if a sealion or whatever other insult you care to throw.

I gave been trying to ask when I don't understand and have just been insulted and told off. When I've expressly said that I don't understand 2 contradictory posts I get further insults, so please don't say people on here are willing to explain because that just isn't true.

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

I'm now getting a mental image of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

It's exactly that. The other side of the coin is that non consummation as a ground for divorce or annulment does not apply to a same sex marriage. A same sex marriage cannot ever be "consummated".

You can imagine what a minefield it would be otherwise.

The law around adultery was originally all to do with PIV and men's need to know that they are the fathers of the children they are supporting. It's about inheritance not bad behaviour.

In the UK prior to 1923 only a man could file for divorce on the grounds of adultery. It wasn't considered a big deal for a married man to have unacknowledged illegitimate children dotted around. It was considered a big deal if a married woman had a child whose father was not her husband.

hooves they are saying that it is fair to allow people to exit marriage BEFORE the sex of their spouse LEGALLY changes, because that change of legal sex fundamentally changes the legal marriage contract. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 sets out the mechanism by which this happens. There is no other annulment option other than that provided by the 2004 Act. Those advocating the removal of that mechanism would instead have people rely on normal divorce proceedings. There is no provision in normal divorce proceedings which guarantees that a spouse can be sure to be divorced prior to their transitioning spouse legally changing their sex; indeed their are many factors that may prevent this from happening. If changing legal sex becomes quicker (as those advocating self-ID hope), then this further reduces the chance of a divorce going through before the transitioning spouse changes their legal sex.

It is without doubt the case that a change in legal sex fundamentally changes the marriage contract, the question is whether you think it is reasonable for a transitioning spouse to have the power to make that fundamental change despite the fact that the marriage has not yet terminated (this might occur for all sorts of reasons, e.g. arguing over a financial settlement) or whether you think either spouse should have an option to terminate the marriage before that fundamental change takes place (which is the current legal position).

Well, I'd like to thank Spartacus for the namecheck, because I finally had the time to RTFT and, after a half hour of rinse and repeat, it was a tonic to find it on the very last page! I'd also like to thank Hooves for services to transwidows throughout. I am now so well informed.

Hang on, so if I wanted an affair with a bloke (because I'm a straight woman), if he said he identified as a woman would that mean no grounds for divorce for my poor DH on basis of adultery? Or presumably to be consistent with everything in this thread my little piece on the side would need a GRC?

(Bit off-topic, sorry)

I'm not even a pretend lawyer but as far as I can tell if your male lover had a GRC it would not be adultery.

Even if they make babies?

Fernando! Get that gas bill changed, will ya?