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 a partner who is trans might not get a GRC. So how would this rule help their spouse?

Because they get an interim GRC which is grounds for annulment.

Just because a law doesn't help everybody is not a reason for getting rid of it.

This thread is making me furious.

Could someones marriage cert be changed and they not know?

Baroness Barker's Bill in the HOL last year proposed applicants for a GRC would have to provide their spouse's address (and IIRC) sign a declaration that the address was correct, so that the spouse could then be informed.

So replacing the right to exit the marriage, with the right to be informed an application for a GRC has been made.

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

Can you not understand the simple concept of a contract being a mutual agreement which one party cannot change unilaterally? A grc fundamentally changes that.

This has been explained by several posters I'm beginning to get a little tired of your wide-eyed lack of comprehension. I'm not even particularly gender critical but I understand it.

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.”

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

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

Yes, I don't think the activists will settle for anything less. Besides, the idea of introducing some kind of mandatory notification process is unrealistic. The spousal consent clause currently serves that very purpose. I don't understand why people who are otherwise against self-id have such a problem with it?

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.

This has been explained repeatedly on the thread. You are being obtuse.

It's not that it's worse, it's that it fundamentally changes the marriage contract. Transitioning is not even a ground for divorce, it's a ground for annulment.

There is no waiting period for citing unreasonable behaviour or adultery as a ground for divorce. In fact for either of these you must apply within 6 months of discovering adultery/the most recent incident of unreasonable behaviour you intend to rely on. If your spouse agrees they are being a shit or has been unfaithful it can be just as quick as an annulment. It's just that spouses don't tend to agree so it goes to court to decide.

Sorting out finances and child arrangements is an essential part of any divorce or annulment, regardless of grounds. Sometimes this takes a long time. It is what it is.

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?

She gets an annulment. An interim GRC is grounds for annulment, not divorce. If neither party applies for annulment within 6 months of the interim GRC being granted then it lapses and the transing spouse has to reapply.

the idea of introducing some kind of mandatory notification process is unrealistic

I agree. If there's no attempt to make sure the notification has been received before proceeding, then it serves no purpose. If there is a provision that the spouse has to acknowledge receipt of the notification it's similar to asking for consent, so wouldn't be tolerated by the TRA's.

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

If I were married to a man for 20 years I wouldn't want to make it as if the whole thing had never happened at all. That would feel really awful

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

Agreed. Those that can get divorced and feel it is more suitable for their circumstances, do.

Annulment is not what everyone will want though

People can opt for divorce instead, or stay married.

Yes I agree an interim GRC should be grounds for either annulment or divorce.

Can you imagine that debate though - 'wah wah wah the evil T* are saying being trans is grounds for divorce, just like unreasonable behaviour!!'

People can opt for divorce instead

On what grounds?

I divorced on Unreasonable Behaviour. I was fortunate that my ex agreed to it.

On what grounds?

In practice, unreasonable behaviour, I guess (with all the potential problems). My point is that refusal of spousal consent doesn't automatically trigger an annulment.

My point is that refusal of spousal consent doesn't automatically trigger an annulment.

I don't understand your point.

An interim GRC doesn't automatically trigger an annulment but can be used as grounds for one by either spouse.

If neither spouse applies for annulment and the non-transitioning spouse does not sign consent to remain married then the interim GRC lapses after 6 months.

Does anyone else now hear hooves and think whataboutery?

I hear hooves and think sealions.

Well, yes. Spouses aren't asking for any kind of special treatment, we just want the same treatment as anyone else who signed a contract, and we don't want the right to have the marriage contract kept intact as a legal document taken away.
Thats not special treatment.

I don't understand your point.

I was just responding to the poster who said they wouldn't want an annulment.

Allowing people to alter their birth certificate is special treatment. Letting women know that their husband is about to officially 'change sex' is a very small consideration compared to that.

Oh right. Yes, the trouble is you'd have to go for unreasonable behaviour or 2 or 5 years separation. There would be no way to get out of the marriage contract before the terms changed.

This is why we need the spousal exit clause in the first place.

I think we need to keep things as they are with the GRA until we have no fault divorce. We then need to leave the spousal exit clause in the GRA but change it to allow annulment or divorce on no fault grounds.

Or just scrap the GRA.

Agreed Pencils. The push to have the clause removed is very worrying, and it enrages me to see women like Jess Phillips support the TRAs on this.

It says something fundamental about trans people that they aren't bending over backwards to cause as little pain to the people they once claimed to love and cherish.

If you marry Fred Bloggs you should be allowed to divorce Fred Bloggs and not have to divorce Pam Butterfield. You shouldn't have to file for divorce against someone you did not marry.

Your marriage certificate which you signed and was witnessed should not be changed to say you married Pam Butterfield when you did no such thing.

Only on page four, but no, you cannot just get divorced in Scotland after two years separation of you have children and any financial issues to settle. You need to have the financial settlement and the child arrangements agreed before you can get divorced. The financial arrangements are usually quite straightforward but if you do not agree the child arrangements, it can take years and/or lots of money. The idea that it is easy to get divorced in Scotland is a complete myth - it is only easy if you agree on finances and child arrangements.

I have not read the draft GRA legislation there yet, but one reason why there may not be a spousal veto (is there? Is there not? Not sure) is simply because if children are involved and matters are complex, divorce can take a good while, or you end up deciding just to wait until your child is 16 and no agreement needed...