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

This is basically what the spousal exit clause does (not clear whether it's always an annulment or dissolution or whether divorce is an option too? IMO it should be for those who prefer that route).

Current grounds for divorce (England and Wales):

1. Adultery
2. Unreasonable Behaviour
3. Desertion
4. 2 years separation with spouse's consent
5. 5 years separation without spouse's consent

So without the exit clause a spouse has to either cite unreasonable behaviour or wait up to 5 years before she can even file for divorce, let alone tie up all the loose ends.

In many, many cases it would be a piece of piss to cite unreasonable behaviour but without the spouse's cooperation it would be up to a judge to decide (see important case law upthread) and as we are discovering, there are some extremely 'woke' judges so it's a bit of a crapshoot.

Also, women face enough opprobrium for wanting to leave their transitioning spouse in the first place. How much worse when he tells everyone she has cited unreasonable behaviour as the reason?

The exit clause gives either spouse a swift, no fault way of ending the marriage before the terms of that contract fundamentally change. They still need to sort out what happens with property and children of course but I cannot fathom why some people think any part of this is unfair.

Or I couldn't until I read CharlieParley's posts. Thanks for the lightbulb moment Charlie, I had been struggling to understand why there was so much focus on this small part of the GRA.

Some interesting points. I agree that no-one should be able to rewrite history this way. However, since they can, then it ought to be grounds for an annulment i.e. the marriage was and is null and void. My concern is that the veto has added yet another and separate rule that just confuses the issue.

The ideal solution is to change the annulment grounds to include a changing your gender and at the same time winding up the veto.

Midgebabe.

Its not difficult. If a person obtains a GRC then for legal purposes they are the sex they transitioned to. If a man is now legally recognised as a woman it then follows that if they are married to a woman, then the marriage is now a same sex marriage.

As the wife is not a lesbian why would, or should, she be made to stay married to someone who is now legally the same sex as her?

then it ought to be grounds for an annulment

No. Dissolution or divorce is better for any children involved. Annulment means there never was a legal marriage and so any children are in fact bastards/illegitimate. This can affect inheritance and have religious stigma. Annulment is not an appropriate way to end what was initially a legitimate marriage.

I guess, in principle, the veto has to stay until the annulment legislation is changed. But it is a truly strange and sloppy law.

Some interesting points. I agree that no-one should be able to rewrite history this way. However, since they can, then it ought to be grounds for an annulment i.e. the marriage was and is null and void. My concern is that the veto has added yet another and separate rule that just confuses the issue.

The ideal solution is to change the annulment grounds to include a changing your gender and at the same time winding up the veto.

This is not ideal because spouses would have to remain married until the transitioner had legally changed gender - there would be no way of ending the contract before the terms were changed.

I don't know if the spousal exit clause can be used for divorce or just for annulment. I think either should be an option because many people don't want to pretend that a past marriage never existed, however unhappy they were in it. That's rewriting history too.

Does annulment allow for a financial settlement?

@PlanDeRaccordement a good point. I hadn't thought of that. But I'm not sure the Veto really helps either. I can't help thinking that you should just not be able to change history. The people who decided this would be possible, have clearly not thought about the consequences.

I don't know if the spousal exit clause can be used for divorce or just for annulment. I think either should be an option because many people don't want to pretend that a past marriage never existed,

I agree spousal exit should be a choice between annulment or divorce.

I think that feminists, like the OP, who are arguing this on the basis that "it's not a same sex marriage, transition doesn't change sex", whilst they might be correct biologically (if not legally), are potentially damaging other women by doing so. Think about what the point of feminism is?

Pedantically following this line, has consequences.

(I am making the assumption that the OP is a feminist).

I can't help thinking that you should just not be able to change history

Yes, I agree with that. The point is that we need gender transitioning to be allowable grounds for immediate annulment or divorce in regards to marriage or immediate dissolution in regards to a civil partnership.

All the conversation has been about the non transitioning partner exercising this, but honestly many transitioning partners probably feel they have been living a lie and I am sure at least some of them would also like the ability to end their marriage or civil partnership immediately. This does nothing but add a legal option for both the nontransitioning and the transitioning partners, that either can freely exercise.

No wonder this aspect does not make sense to me.

Are you saying that everyone should be comfortable with having their marriage changed to be a same sex marriage without their consent even though that does not fit with both spouses wishes?

That because the reality that the non-transitioned spouse considers themselves heterosexual and lives their life according to reality, that the legal status of having a same sex marriage should not matter to them because it is just a piece of paper. One that no longer reflects the integrity of the facts of the original marriage.

I am honestly trying to clarify your thinking.

OK I've just looked it up, an interim GRC is included in the list of grounds for granting an annulment:

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

So the remaining question is why some people seem to think this should not be allowed before the full GRC and legally fictional birth certificate are granted.

So the remaining question is why some people seem to think this should not be allowed before the full GRC and legally fictional birth certificate are granted.

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

I think Charley Parley's point about spousal veto having to go because it denies the transitioner total control of the process is key. A wife having a say in things cannot be allowed.

Also the financial aspect of things. A woman being able to require half the family finances, child support etc before you can obtain a GRC? Unthinkable. Better that she's trapped in the marriage for two years or more until divorce is a possibility and then has paperwork which gives the impression she is a lesbian who was married to a woman for however many years...

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

A wife having a say in things cannot be allowed.

The absolutely unacceptable thing is that it's not even asking for a say in other people's business. It's just asking for the consideration to sort out her own business by being able to divorce. I've been here 10 years, and it still shocks me sometimes the entitlement so many men have.

Oh I know this one! It's because it might delay a man getting something he wants.

Of course! What was I thinking?

Also the financial aspect of things. A woman being able to require half the family finances, child support etc before you can obtain a GRC? Unthinkable. Better that she's trapped in the marriage for two years or more until divorce is a possibility and then has paperwork which gives the impression she is a lesbian who was married to a woman for however many years...

I wonder how much a person could manage to spend on, say, lipstick, lingerie and heels in that sort of time frame? If it was really, really important to them and crucial to the fulfilment of their desire to become their 'true self'?

I wonder how much a person could manage to spend on, say, lipstick, lingerie and heels in that sort of time frame? If it was really, really important to them and crucial to the fulfilment of their desire to become their 'true self'?

Not as much as they could spend on cosmetic surgery...

Oh crap, of course.

When you contract to marry, you specifically contract to take the other person as your lawful wedded husband (or wife). Husband and wife have very specific meanings, relating to the sex of the person. A woman cannot be a husband. A man cannot be a wife. If I have said "I take John to be my lawful wedded husband" and John is now a woman (and always has been) how can my marriage contract still be valid as the man I took to be my husband no longer exists?

Where it leaves people in civil partnerships, I don't know.

I can't help thinking that you should just not be able to change history

The whole point of the GRA is to change history. The person gets a new birth certificate to say that they were born the opposite sex.

The same exit clause can be used to dissolve a civil partnership. Up until a few weeks ago this was required because a CP was only permitted between same sex couples.

Similarly, before equal marriage it was a requirement to end the marriage before a full GRC could be issued. That's the reason this clause is there in the first place - they weren't actually thinking of women and our rights!

What happens about finances with annulment?

Thinking about the common situation where a woman has sacrificed career to raise kids, support spouse as main breadwinner etc

At my work people talk about their families inviting exes loads! Esp if they have kids with them, it's hardly unusual.