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?

Why would any sane, decent human being wish to force their partner to remain legally bound to them against their will?

Oh FFS

If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans

Read the trans widows threads, that's not how it happens.

can I not say in that case I want a divorce? No o e is forcing me to stay married to him are they?

Lucky you. Not all women can get divorced. Even if they can it can take 5 years.

I dont have veto over anything else that he might decide to change about the marriage so why this?

It's not a veto, all it delays is the change of birth certificate. Everything else can be changed. The transitioner even gets an interim GRC.

Also this is something so fundamental to the terms of the marriage, that of course the non transitioner should be able to end it as easily as possible if they want to. Don't minimise it by comparing it to other lesser changes.

Going back to the OP, I suggested you read the trans widow threads but you already had.

guess because what I see on those threads is so much mixed up with hurt and abuse.

Surely when this is happening then a quick divorce should be facilitated rather than putting women through yet more hurt?

Why can't the man wait until he is single? Why are his feelings more important than any woman's?

Bearing in mind that according to trans ideology he was always living a lie as he knew he was a woman "really" so he tricked a woman into marrying him under false pretences.

Why are women's feelings not of any importance to you?

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

I'm not a lesbian. I find the thought of being physically and sexually involved with a woman revolting. I could not touch another woman's breasts or genitals. If you think that is "homophobic" I don't care.

lesbian doesn't even mean lesbian , the persons biology has not changed

Well you are flat out contradictory yourself and probably most trans woman by saying that. After all if someone says they are a lesbian they are.

Would you say if someone says "I will never marry an Indian" that there might be an element of racism in there?

On the whole I don't find Asian men, of any ethnic group attractive and to be honest very few men of colour. I also am not attracted to south European Hispanic or Latin men. Basically I am attracted to tall Dutch and Scandinavian types. Again I don't really care if that makes me racist.

I wonder about the religion one: if you can’t divorce then you also can’t generally be in a same sex marriage either. Religions that forbid the former tend to forbid the latter. So either the GRC cannot be recognised within that context or something else has to happen.

The religious aspect is a complete red herring. No one should be compelled to stay in a marriage where one party has unilaterally changed the terms of the contract.

Marriage is a contract. You don't get to unilaterally change the terms of any other contract.

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

Lucky you. Not all women can get divorced. Even if they can it can take 5 years.

But those women couldn't get divorced for any reason then - infidelity, desertion, refusing to have children...spouses aren't expected to get permission before changing any number of other things that fundamentally affect their partner and in any of those cases divorce would take 5 years if the spouse contested it.

In the situation where there is any abuse, which could to me include bullying around sexuality, then all efforts should be focussed fully on the divorce ...anything else would be wrong.

But again, that should be the case for any divorce request. There needs to be a means for a fair and quick separation for any kind of abuse? Transisition in itself isn't abuse? So again , it's really just saying until the problem of abusive marriages can be more easily resolved, there is no reason make that problem worse ..which is fair.

Why have the veto rather than having say transition as valid grounds for Divorce? Then the person could not disagree with the divorce whilst simultaneously applying for a certificate, in uk at least the whole divorce process can be very quick if it's agreed by both sides?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Why is it a forced gay marriage though?

If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans can I not say in that case I want a divorce? No o e is forcing me to stay married to him are they?

This is the proposed legislation we are discussing on this and other threads; a cross party group want to remove your right to exit the marriage, under the guise of removing the spousal veto.

And just to make it absolutely clear:

The spousal exit clause needs to be abolished for self-determination of legal sex to work in practice.

Filling in a simple form to change your legal sex without the current gatekeeping requirements and safeguarding rules will not work if a spouse's objection requires a temporary GRC to be issued. There's no provision made for that in the draft GRA bill published by the Scottish Government for instance.

There isn't some huge injustice they're seeking to address - the spousal exit clause stands in the way of self-id. So it has to go.

I dont have veto over anything else that he might decide to change about the marriage so why this?

Just stop this emotional blackmail now. It is not a veto. You are either deliberately lying or have failed to understand the law; in either case not a good look.

So far as changing anything I married a man. I did not and never would marry a woman. My husband has no right to change that.

It would remove the risk of coercion if transitioning was automatic grounds for divorce, then a statutory separation and cooling off period, then people could remarry if they choose to.

Transisition in itself isn't abuse?

Isn't it? Who says so? I'm afraid I disagree. It's never going to happen but I'm sorry if my husband announced he had been lying to me and my son all these years and was really a woman I would want nothing more to do with him.

can I not say in that case I want a divorce? No o e is forcing me to stay married to him are they?
You can go for divorce if you want to, no one is forcing you to take the annulment route.

It's funny how people are so worked up about women's right to have their marriage annulled before their husband gets a GRC. The fact that men can obtain a new birth certificate with a different name and gender is potentially far more problematic (see e.g. DBS checks), but I'm not seeing any politicians wringing their hands over that.

Itwould remove the risk of coercion if transitioning was automatic grounds for divorce, then a statutory separation and cooling off period, then people could remarry if they choose to

There is no need for it to be automatic. If both parties are OK they need do nothing. If the non- transitioner isn't then a very simple , "sorry, I'm out" declaration should be enough to release that person.

Is there something basically abusive in forcing someone to stay in a marriage ?

a cross party group want to remove your right to exit the marriage, under the guise of removing the spousal veto.

How can they force 2 people to remain married? They can't be doing that.

'If my DH came to me tomorrow and said he is now trans can I not say in that case I want a divorce?'

If no fault then you have to wait 5 years see this recent case that was all over the news

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/tini-owens-trapped-loveless-marriage-judges-refuse-divorce

Is there something basically abusive in forcing someone to stay in a marriage ?

Is that a serious question? Of course it's abusive

I guess I also struggle to accept that someone's sexuality is changed because of someone else's identity change . I could imagine confusion but fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

midge

I have read through this thread and I too feel that you are missing the ‘forced’ change of identity of the non-transitioning spouse.

Do you not see that having another person change your own identity (in this instance being married to someone the same sex) is abusive?

To me, it isn’t about being homosexual or not. It is about having another person legally force any change to your own identity to accommodate their own change of identity. To me, it is that simple.

Why have the veto rather than having say transition as valid grounds for Divorce?

Are you actually reading the responses?

IT
IS
NOT
A
VETO

It's nothing more than a deferral. You cant do X until Y.

It just never occurred to me so clearly before how the divorce laws facilitate abuse