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?

^in England^

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

It irritates me immensely to hear talk of "religious law" in the context of the UK. All marriages in the UK require to comply with the requirements of the civil law to be valid.

All divorces require to be done under civil law. A marriage can , in limited circumstances be annulled under civil law.
An annulment applying "religious law" does
not annul a marriage.

Equally you are no longer married after a divorce no matter what your priest or your own conscience is telling you.

It's no more than a form of politeness to talk about religious customs as "religious law".

Tiger what you say is true for divorce but not marriage. Double checked - Church of England and Church in Wales you marry under ecclesiastical law and this is recognised by civil law. (Jews and Quakers celebrant are automatically registrars, other religions need to register as a registrar). In these churches, for example, you do not need to give notice at the register office but instead have the Banns read.

Tigerwhat you say is true for divorce but not marriage. Double checked - Church of England and Church in Wales you marry under ecclesiastical law and this is recognised by civil law

The important point is recognised by the civil law These ceremonies need that recognition to make them valid , legal marriages.

Well, religious laws do exist for some groups within the UK otherwise Sharia councils would not exist! So it is perfectly valid to talk of religious laws in the UK in the context of Islamic law, which I did.

www.islamic-sharia.org/services/

The point is obviously that the people marrying and divorcing under such laws are not protected by civil laws unless the marriage is registered and they also have a civil law divorce, but it does not mean such religious marriages and divorces do not exist.

Webchat with Jess Phillips

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3797731-Webchat-with-Labour-leadership-contender-Jess-Phillips-MP-on-Monday-January-20-at-1pm

I was good and left the spousal veto question for Tinsel!

Here is the question I have posted on the web chat thread. I hope it isn't deleted.

Hi Jess.

Thank you for being a long term campaigner for women who have suffered domestic abuse.

How do you reconcile this with your recently stated position on Twitter that the Spousal Exit Clause (often misnamed as the Spousal Veto) in the Gender Recognition Act is "awful"?
This clause exists purely to enable spouses to exit a marriage before the terms of it entirely change.

Would you be willing to discuss this issue further with women who have been in this position (trans widows)?

They appear to have deleted it Tinsel. Fucking hell

Ffs. Tinsel's question wasn't about sex & gender identity.

I'm really annoyed. Trans Widows are so widely silenced I never thought MN would collaborate with our silencing.

It wasn't a question about sex and gender, it's a question about a situation which could lead to the exacerbation of domestic abuse. ie particularly relevant to Jess.

I'm sorry, Tinsel. It's not good.

If Mumsnet won't help Trans Widows ask this question, nobody will.

I'm not sure how I'd arrange that given my post expressing disappointment has also been deleted!

You could try a site stuff thread?

Very poor form, MNHQ.

That deletion is shocking. And I’ve only just realised how disingenuous the original post is. How can anyone have read the Transwidows threads and not realised why any spouse should have a get out mechanism? Sorry if pps have pointed this out.

I mean the OP on this thread.

Yes Spartacus. No deletion message, no email, nothing.

How can they do that. Someone at MNHQ must have read the transwidows threads. How could they even think that shouldn't be a question. I dont know what else to say.

I got a suspension warning on the last webchat for asking more than question. Jus' sayin'.

TinselAngel well that sucks!

I thought the term “transwidow” was problematic on some boards? Maybe that’s why?

Doesn’t explain the no deletion email or conversation though 😬