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?

But the word lesbian no longer means what it once did. You would still be in a heterosexual relationship, ( homogender ) but just one branded otherwise because of an idiotic ideology.

I have read your thread but I am struggling to understand why you think women should be trapped in a marriage they did not sign up to, or why you are calling straight women homophobic for not wanting to be in a lesbian relationship.

This is a problem where the legal state and reality are not the same thing.

They excused it in the original hearing because it would only involve about 5000 individuals.

So we have a confused mess where one wins over the other in different situations whether they are equivalent or not.

If the law wins out, does that mean totalitarism?

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

The party wanting the divorce could move to Scotland and apply after 2 years separation.

Midget see the link I just posted

The court agreed it was awful for the woman but had to apply the law

Sorry, slightly off topic but just thought, if GRC are applied retrospectively (so change the marriage certificate) then what happens to their children’s birth certificates?

Do some people not read the news much or something?

This was a very well reported case and was talked about on the boards possibly the main ones too. If have thought people with an interest in women's rights would have clocked it. It was headline.

Read the OP I am using the term veto whilst being perfectly aware that it isn't a permanent veto or one that stops the transitioner living their life

I am only trying to untangle the various aspects

I am beginning to think that the veto is a sticking plaster over a bigger problem

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.

How on earth am I emotionally blackmailing anyone?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the law, certainly not as it's being represented here anyway and given that there seem to be so many different opinions here I don't think others understand it either.

I cannot believe that the law says that you have to remain in a marriage that you want to leave. Anyone can divorce can't they? The amount of time it takes depends on whether both parties agree but isn't that the case for divorce on any grounds?

If a partner decides after many years of marriage that they are indeed gay and no longer wish to.live as husband and wife the partner can't veto that can they? If the injured party choose to divorce the other partner can refuse and presumably the divorce will take 5 years rather than 2. Is that much different to this?

fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

But it does if they transition while still married under the current thinking that you can change your sex on legal documents. Why do you think this should have no effect on the non transitioning partners life? It may certainly not effect their own sexuality for future relationships, or their own future gender identity, but it means that within this marriage their identity has been forceably changed.

I was going to write a longer post but then saw this...

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

YES OP, yes. We have divorce in this country. We also have laws about consent.

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

Well exactly. The wife's sexual orientation has not changed just because her husband wants to transition and call himself a lesbian, so why should the wife be forced to accept a homosexual marriage when that for her would be a LIE.

What about other official documents eg. If they witnessed their child’s marriage, or someone’s will?

I could imagine confusion but fundamentally I don't think that anything of the none transitioned person changes

Biologically, no. Legally, yes.

If a partner decides after many years of marriage that they are indeed gay and no longer wish to.live as husband and wife

Them deciding they are gay does not alter the status of their spouse. Them deciding they are the other sex, does.

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.

This is an excellent point CharlieParley, I hadn't thought of it that way.

'I guess I also struggle to accept that someone's sexuality is changed because of someone else's identity change '

Well it depends if you want to lie to people and/ or whether you want to be accused of transphobia.

If you don't want to lie and you don't want to or can't afford to be seen as transphobia, when someone asks Jane if she's married, the answer needs to be yes, who to, a woman called Trish.

Which will change facts about her and potentially scupper chances of relationships with men at work! Unless she further announces that she's bisexual?

I mean come on it course it affects the spouse!

Sorry bold fail.

Them deciding they are gay does not alter the status of their spouse. Them deciding they are the other sex, does.

It does if they refuse to get divorced, refuse to leave the marital home etc. The injured party is then married to a gay spouse, unable to remarry, have children whilst married.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the law

Anybody can go and read the Gender Recognition Act, and many, like Hooves would benefit from doing so.

It does if they refuse to get divorced,

No. It does if they want a GRC and the spousal veto is abolished.

How on earth am I emotionally blackmailing anyone?

By your insistence on using the word "veto".

I'm sorry but I don't understand the law, certainly not as it's being represented here anyway and given that there seem to be so many different opinions here I don't think others understand it either

No you clearly don't understand it but there are plenty on here who do.

The "veto" is not a veto. It gives the spouse who does not want to have her or his status changed the opportunity to get out of the marriage without proving fault or a lengthy separation. In that period the transitioner gets an interim grc which becomes a full grc when the divorce completes.

If you're married or in a civil partnership

If you’re married

You can stay married if you apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate, unless your marriage is registered under the law of Northern Ireland.

You and your spouse must fill in a statutory declaration saying you both agree to stay married.

You’ll get an ‘interim certificate’ if you or your spouse do not want to remain married, or if your spouse does not fill in a statutory declaration. You can use the interim certificate as grounds to end the marriage.

If your marriage is registered in England or Wales and you have an interim certificate, you’ll only get a full certificate once you end your marriage.

If your marriage was registered in Scotland, you can use an interim certificate to apply to the sheriff court for a full certificate. You do not need to end your marriage first.

Contact the administrative team at the Gender Recognition Panel if either you or your spouse change your mind about staying married during the application process.

If you don't want to lie and you don't want to or can't afford to be seen as transphobia, when someone asks Jane if she's married, the answer needs to be yes, who to, a woman called Trish.

Which will change facts about her and potentially scupper chances of relationships with men at work! Unless she further announces that she's bisexual?

Oh come on. Are you married? No separated but I don't want to discuss it.

Is that may different to a spouse whose partner cheated on them or did any number of other things that ends the marriage? Why is it any business if the people that you work with?

Even if you don't think that being trapped in a marriage for 5 years isn't that bad, or that its not a problem because you can move to Scotland; this is probably going to require a change in the law to allow a new contract to be applied retrospectively, even if one party to the contract disagrees.

If my husband transitioned then I would want the opportunity to divorce the man I married quickly, so we could both move on. I would want my personal history to say I married a man, John and I divorced him. I would not want my history to be rewritten to say I married a woman, Jane and.divorced her...implying that I had spent 20 years as a lesbian when I had not.
I would want the divorce to happen before John acquired a GRC and rewrote my life.

Both partners here have a choice.

It's ok to end a relationship or marriage for any reason.

No fault divorce is not good solution for those who cannot get divorced. In addition, no fault divorce doesn't help people get divorced any more quickly than fault divorce, because what generally slows down divorce is not the divorce itself, but the financial settlement that needs to be reached before the divorce can be granted. So to be sure that divorce occured before a GRC is granted there would be to be legislation to guarantee this and then the no fault divorce would operate in the same way as the current system. The question is whether it acceptable to require people to be in a marriage with someone who is now legally the opposite sex.