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?

Including not inviting

For people who are naturally quite open it would be hard to just be all clammy about it. Everyone is different, try to remember.

Looks like you can apply for a financial order at the same time as an annulment:

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688091/d8n-notes-eng.pdf

Good to know that there is a financial settlement on annulment. Presumably it works in the same way as divorce, whereby the finances have to be agreed before the annulment can go through?

Let’s reverse the situation.

I was quite close to a married lesbian couple where one of the partners went through transition. The spouse who did not transition suddenly found herself sleeping with a person without breasts and covered in chest hair, something she was not in any way attracted to and something that in fact created revulsion in her because — she was lesbian, ie not attracted to males.

She found herself in a marriage to someone who was, because of the tremendous effects of male levels of testosterone on females, suddenly much more volatile and aggressive.

She found herself, as part of a couple, no longer welcomed in the lesbian events she and her partner had long attended because according to the ideology, she and her partner were now a heterosexual couple.

Her partner’s transition fundamentally altered her entire life — in her bed, inside the walls of her house, and externally in her community.

Should she not be able to end that marriage before her partner so radically alters the very foundation of that marriage?

Should she actually have to endure this alteration and loss for 2 or 5 years?

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!

True, although its function as a way to give both spouses equal say in the future of their marriage has been recognised more recently:

The Women and Equalities report on Transgender Equality noted the following on Spousal consent:

“Since the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, marriage in the law of England and Wales takes the form of a contract between two people of different sexes or two people of the same sex. Therefore, the law as it currently stands requires both parties to agree to the status of a marriage being changed.

Consequently, where one party transitions, the non-trans party must give their consent to the change of marriage status before a full GRC can be issued. If such consent is withheld, the marriage must be dissolved by divorce or annulled before a full GRC can be issued. In this circumstance, an interim GRC can be issued, on the basis of which either party to the marriage can apply to have it annulled.”

In its submission to the report, the Government Equalities Office said:

“[The requirement for consent] does not mean anyone will have a right to prevent their wife or husband obtaining a legal gender change; simply that they will be allowed to decide whether they want their marriage to continue before gender recognition is granted. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and it is right that both spouses should have an equal say in their future when there is a fundamental change.”

womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

BickerinBrattle

Could you not make the same argument for people in abusive marriages though? I'm sure they would like to be able to divorce quickly. Or partners who have been cheated on?

BickerinBrattle, you're right – as soon as you take all the traditional expectations and wifely 'stand by your man' stuff out of the equation it looks very different.

Only one thing. In the lesbian circles I frequent the non-transitioning lesbian would would be welcome. Nothing about her has changed, she is still a lesbian. Some lesbian groups will also allow transmen but that's more complicated and tends to split groups.

Hooves

Yes, you could. Which is an argument for no-fault divorce. I think it would be marvelous to start a thread about the need for that.

This discussion is specifically about one provision of the law largely benefiting women, one which Jess Phillips is seeking to remove.

If there's abuse in the relationship – and evidence to support that – then a divorce can be obtained fairly quickly. It would involve going to court, though, and the spousal veto can avoid cost and the delays.

“ Could you not make the same argument for people in abusive marriages though?”
That comes under Unreasonable Behaviour.

“Or partners who have been cheated on?”
That’s Adultery.

I know it's adultery. The divorce process still takes time though doesn't it?

Didn’t you read the earlier post from PencilsinSpace?:

“ 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.”

And the unreasonable behaviour petition can be contested. (Maybe I should get this printed on a T-shirt so I don't have to keep repeating it?)

If there's abuse in the relationship – and evidence to support that – then a divorce can be obtained fairly quickly

No it can't. There's no special provision for speeding divorce up in these circumstances. It could still take 5 years.

But say your spouse commits adultery. You still have to go through the divorce process and they have to be willing to admit adultery. What if they don't? A friend of mine has been trying to divorce on the grounds of adultery for 2 years but he's being an arse about the financial settlement so it's nowhere near being sorted.

Im struggling really to see why having a partner who is trans is so much worse than other reasons for marriages ending, such that it requires a special divorce process.

I'm also confused by people saying that ending this process (that op calls a veto but isn't) will affect women who can't get divorced. What is meant by this? From reading this thread the idea of this "veto" is simply that the partner can only get an interim GRC until.the divorce is finalised. Is that correct? So how would that affect a woman who can't get divorced? Her DH could still transition but could only get an interim GRC? Is that right? So she would remain married, her partner could continue with the transition but couldn't get a GRC?

There's no special provision for speeding divorce up in these circumstances. It could still take 5 years.

So why should being married to a partner that is transitioning be treated more favourably in divorce than an abusive partner?

I think what they need to do is

Introduce quick no fault divorce
Spouse needs to be aware of this, mechanism could be that marriage cert not to be amended without agreement of spouse (they need to either agree to have the cert changed or file for divorce, so it's not to stop transition but make sure spouse understands options, many people won't be up to speed)
Would that work

A lot of spouses may well not be aware of what it all means, or their options. It would all happen without them even being aware? Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

So why should being married to a partner that is transitioning be treated more favourably in divorce than an abusive partner?

FFS Hooves, that's not a gotcha.

It has been carefully explained to you many times on this thread, that it's because one partner getting a GRC fundamentally alters the terms of the marriage.

How much campaigning do you do for abused women to be allowed quickie divorces I wonder given you think it is so important? I'll guess none.

Just because one cohort of women unjustly might struggle to get out of a marriage doesn't mean we have to change the law to level down, so it's equally difficult for all women.

And that's before we even go into how many relationships with late transitioners are also abusive (see transwidows threads- nearly 3000 posts).

But a partner who is trans might not get a GRC. So how would this rule help their spouse? They would still be married to a partner who is presenting as the opposite sex, all practical problems the same, just that their partner wouldn't legally have changed identity?

I think the answer is to have quick, no fault divorce for everyone. I can't see the argument for only one group to have special treatment.

Okay, Hooves— agreed: fight for no-fault divorce.

In the meantime — why remove a provision that largely benefits women?

Or are you arguing that since OTHER women often find themselves trapped in marriage where circumstances have changed, EVERY woman should therefore be trapped in marriage?

The difference is that the original marriage cert is altered with this, which is non trivial.

Legal documents between more than 1 party shouldn't be allowed to be unilaterally changed by one of them. It is against all precedent, and a not a good precedent to set.

I don't understand why the marriage certificate is changed at all tbh. At the time the marriage happened it was between person X and y. If y later decides to become z they weren't at the time of the marriage so why is it changed?

If I change my name by deed poll after marriage my marriage certificate still shows my name at the time of the marriage doesn't it, so why is it changed in this case?

Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

In one of the consultations last year (I think it was the Scottish one), they asked about whether consent should have to be obtained from the non-transitioning spouse, and then a further question, that if consent wasn't required, whether the non-transitioning spouse should be informed about their spouse's transition.

Changing the nature of the marriage not only without spousal consent, but also without their knowledge is definitely being considered.

I think the answer is to have quick, no fault divorce for everyone. I can't see the argument for only one group to have special treatment.

OK when you've started your campaign let us know, and we'll sign up.

I think it's more that you won't see the argument than that you can't. God knows it's been explained enough times.

I don't lol often, but I think I might allow myself a rare lol, at the thought that women in this hellish situation are getting "special treatment".

lol

As I presume you must be against annulment per se, rather than just in these circumstances (as it risks women getting "special treatment") I presume you will also be campaigning for the other reasons for annulment to be abolished too?

ie

•	it was not consummated - you have not had sexual intercourse with the person you married since the wedding (does not apply for same sex couples)
•	you did not properly consent to the marriage - for example you were forced into it
•	the other person had a sexually transmitted disease (STD) when you got married
•	your spouse was pregnant by someone else when you got married

Correction, the consultations were in 2018, not last year.