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?

Before same sex marriage you had to get the marriage annulled or get divorced before you could get a GRC.

popehilarious You could partake in any sex act bar PIV with "Fernando" and it wouldn't be adultery, regardless of "Fernando's" legal or actual sex. Hence the Bill Clinton quote: he stuck his dick in Lewinksi's mouth and a cigar in her vagina, but it wasn't adultery under English law.

Before same sex marriage you had to get the marriage annulled or get divorced before you could get a GRC.

That was the bit that was discriminatory and cruel. Couples wishing to stay married couldn't if one transitioned. But that's now been fixed. TBH the laws that should have been passed in 2004 were the same-sex marriage amendment and equalisation of pension ages. We would not have needed the GRA if Parliament had passed those.

If the so called spousal veto is to be removed then gender transition should be one of the acceptable legal reasons for a quick divorce.
If that were done there would be no issue.

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.

And in many cases, that male has married a woman and fathered children 'as a man' before he gets the urge to transition. Why the hell should he have a birth certificate that says he was born female? It's insane. Politicians (esp. those who weren't around in 2004 and had no input in the GRA) should be looking at the bigger picture instead of tinkering with individual provisions which safeguard spouses' rights.

If the so called spousal veto is to be removed then gender transition should be one of the acceptable legal reasons for a quick divorce.
If that were done there would be no issue.

Yes there would if you're from a religion or culture where you can't get divorced, or if you do get divorced you aren't allowed to remarry etc.

And the husband could get a GRC without the spouse's knowledge.

Tinsel so in those cases are you suggesting that annulment is preferable to divorce? I don't know enough about it, clearly!

In those cases I'm suggesting annulment can be the only option.

Someone upthread said that religious annulment can be granted after a civil divorce, implying that civil annulment isn't the same as religious annulment. Does a civil annulment guarantee that a religious one would follow?

Regardless of how the marriage is ended, it should be swift. The non-transitioning spouse (NTS) married a person of one sex who now seeks to retroactively alter the marriage agreement by changing legal sex and pushing the NTS into a different marriage than what the NTS agreed to. The NTS should be presumed to disagree with that unilateral change of terms and should have to give explicit consent before terms are altered or else have the marriage ended before the transitioning spouse changes legal sex.

FFS, my employer isn't allowed to impose new terms on me without me signing to them, and refusal to sign constitutes my resignation. Whilst I would be working my notice, the new terms would not apply to me because I did not agree to them. That's in a job, which is much less of a life-changing commitment than a marriage is.

I am wondering. Shouldn’t the consent be the other way round; you should have to give consent for the marriage to continue when a spouse gets a GRC. The default should be a GRC brings a marriage to its end (and as such finances and children need to be sorted first). Afterall the person who signed the marriage certificate ceases to exist.

I would say that's more logical, yes.

Regardless of how the marriage is ended, it should be swift.

Absolutely this. Also it should remain a separate, no-fault, no-questions-asked ground, whether for annulment or divorce.

Part of the Equality Act is the Public Sector Equality Duty:

149 Public sector equality duty

(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

If the spousal exit clause is removed then this takes away a no-fault ground for ending the marriage and instead pushes spouses towards citing unreasonable behaviour. This flies in the face of the PSED. This fosters bad relations between people with the PC of gender reassignment and those who don't share it (their spouses).

Frequently there is actual unreasonable behaviour but most people seeking a divorce just want it over quickly with a minimum of drama and acrimony, especially if they have children.

Before same sex marriage you had to get the marriage annulled or get divorced before you could get a GRC

Yes and this was still the case up until literally yesterday in Northern Ireland.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51086276

It probably still is the case, technically, until the GRA amendments go through.

Isn't it strange how little we have heard about this compared with the narrative of nasty mean transwidows 'vetoing' their husbands' transition?

There doesn't seem to have been much press at all about equal marriage going through in NI. It's almost as if LGB don't really matter these days.

I am wondering. Shouldn’t the consent be the other way round; you should have to give consent for the marriage to continue when a spouse gets a GRC. The default should be a GRC brings a marriage to its end (and as such finances and children need to be sorted first). Afterall the person who signed the marriage certificate ceases to exist.

This is pretty much what happens.

As part of their application, a married GRC applicant must send in their spouse's signed consent for the marriage to continue. Otherwise they are only given an interim GRC and must bring the marriage to its end, including sorting out finances and child arrangements, before a full certificate is issued.

The sole purpose of an interim GRC is to provide grounds to end the marriage.

FFS, my employer isn't allowed to impose new terms on me without me signing to them, and refusal to sign constitutes my resignation. Whilst I would be working my notice, the new terms would not apply to me because I did not agree to them. That's in a job, which is much less of a life-changing commitment than a marriage is.

Yes. Same for tenancies and landlords increasing the rent. They can't just do it without your agreement, even if not agreeing means they just serve a S21 notice and evict you.

Even in areas where the law has no teeth to protect vulnerable parties, the basic principles and concepts of what a contract is are upheld.

Does a civil annulment guarantee that a religious one would follow?

Nothing to do with trans issues, but there are Jewish women trapped in marriages with husbands who have left them as they arent divorced under religious law.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document)

bd67th my understanding is that religious and civil law are entirely separate - so a civil annulment would have no bearing on the status of the parties in terms of their religion if they had had a religious marriage.

Feminazgul cross post - yes, the same is true of women in Islamic marriages.

This has been a great thread for clarifying loads of issues.

my understanding is that religious and civil law are entirely separate

Not entirely. As I understand it in most religions (and many Christian denominations) couples either need a civil wedding or, more commonly, the celebrant is also registered as a civil registrar. But if you get married in the church of England or Catholic Church (and I vaguely remember Jewish and Quakers) then you are married under church law but this is recognised by civilian law.