Ruth Hunt uses maiden speech to make wildly misleading claims about the spousal veto

[miri1985]

Penis news is the only place reporting on this so as not to give them extra clicks, heres an archive link to the article about it <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/save/www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/05/ruth-hunt-baroness-marriage-reforms-spousal-veto-house-of-lords/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/save/www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/05/ruth-hunt-baroness-marriage-reforms-spousal-veto-house-of-lords/

The baroness said: “As a practising Christian, I understand how important it is to some people that marriage for same-sex couples is different from marriage to opposite-sex couples.

“I’m not sure if it remains necessary, however, to make the legal distinction between the two. The so called ‘quadruple lock’ that prevents the Church of England marrying same-sex couples could remain in place without the need to maintain two separate legal institutions.”

Explaining the “unintended consequence” for transgender people of retaining different models of marriage, she added: “When a couple is married and one person in that marriage transitions, their partner must consent to the change to change their marriage from an opposite-sex one to a same-sex one, or vice versa. If the partner refuses, the spouse cannot receive a gender recognition certificate.

“[A person] currently has the power to stop his spouse transitioning. This doesn’t seem fair or right. And his right to veto is because marriage for same-sex couples is a different institution to marriage for opposite-sex couples.

“Making divorce easier is common sense. It helps couples navigate what is often a distressing time more easily. I would ask government though, that we explore opportunities to simplify things further marriages marriage in the eyes of the law, and as a nation, we are proud that we extended it to same-sex couples.

“Anything we can do to help trans people and their families navigate the changes that are happening in their lives, that seems sensible too.”

Would love one of the fact check sites to do a report on this but I doubt it would be seen as important enough. Anyone else notice the use of "his spouse" instead of their wonder if that was intentional.

We need the equivalent of a Full Fact or other fact-checker for women.

I'm beyond tired of what Will Moy terms zombie claims:

fullfact.org/search/?q=zombie+claim#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=zombie%20claim&gsc.page=1

Full Fact is remarkably effective and punches well above its weight. We're in desperate need of an equivalent service for women/safeguarding etc. that can deal with zombie claims like Ruth Hunt's.

I guess Ruth Hunt is one of those lesbians who wouldn't mind finding herself in a marriage with "Simon" whose birth certificate says that they were born male. That's fine, but what about those who do mind?

If she is so against people being able to assert their sexual identity in a legal context, what is it that makes her so passionate about the legal recognition of trans identities? It doesn't make sense. She is prioritising a person's ability to alter their birth certificate above everything else.

"We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto"

Yes and I saw the Lib Dems framing it this way, as a natural extension to the introduction of same sex marriage, in the run up to the election. Maybe in their manifesto? I suspect Belcher had considerable influence on all their policies and manifesto commitments.

March 2013 Parliamentary Public Bill Committee
Marriage (Same Sex Couples)
Memorandum submitted by Helen Belcher

(extract)
23. It is important that the legislation avoids gendered terms, such as "husband" and "wife", as much as possible. In the consultation phase prior to the Bill being published, the term used was equal marriage. I greatly prefer this term.

24. My wife is still my wife, despite my "transition". However, she may well struggle to refer to me as her wife, even after 10 years. For the state to impose that description on me would cause her great difficulty, which may disrupt our family life, thereby breaching Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Equally, however, I would (and do) object to being labelled the husband of my wife. I do not consider myself to be male, despite the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate (continues)

25. By the time a trans person becomes eligible for gender recognition, people will generally perceive that individual as already being of their "acquired gender". If the spouse refuses consent (to this intangible, perceived change of status to their marriage), then the trans person’s gender recognition process halts, and there is nothing the trans person can do to change that situation. It is quite possible that divorce proceedings may already be underway. This is a gross breach of the trans person’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

26. Relationships where one partner "comes out" as trans can cause disruption and hostility between the partners. Because of my work on support forums for trans people, I know of several cases which have resulted in acrimonious divorce as a result of such disclosure. Some trans people have been forced through long, drawn-out divorce proceedings with no ability to resolve them. The legislation as currently drafted would hand the right of gender recognition solely to such an obstructive spouse, who may delay it, without good purpose, for many years and, potentially, indefinitely.

27. I believe that there is an amendment before the Committee which removes the right of spouses, obstructive or not, to block gender recognition by withholding consent. I would urge the Committee to support this amendment."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m107.htm

So the evidence is "other trans people say so on private forums"?

"By the time a trans person becomes eligible for gender recognition, people will generally perceive that individual as already being of their "acquired gender"."

Nonsense. A male who has changed his name on the gas bill would still be perceived as male by most people. Or is Belcher talking about physical appearance? I thought it didn't matter?
"Some women have beards." - Layla Moran

Allegedly say so, yes it seems thats the case.
The LibDems were clearly very moved by Helen & Joanna Belcher's speeches.

twitter.com/lfeatherstone/status/1172998880436326401

The absence of evidence is blinding.

Requiring the law to be changed for the sake of issues within one marriage is an interesting concept.

Incidentally, many mumsnetters and others were kind enough to write to Layla Moran before the election, using my template email. One of the questions we asked was - what evidence there is of the exit clause being used abusively- I've not heard that anyone got a reply at all- even her own constituents.

Indeed & wide ranging laws, beyond the GRA.

It also seems not to have been considered that the 'abusive/controlling' spouse could be the one transitioning, which if one considers common power dynamics within heterosexual marriages, especially with children, is likely to be the husband (however much he might prefer not to be termed thus).

One of the questions we asked was - what evidence there is of the exit clause being used abusively- I've not heard that anyone got a reply at all- even her own constituents.

It seems the same questions need to be asked of The Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green as well as The Baroness Barker, of Anagach.

How is is possible to design policy based on the experiences of one family - well really on the needs of one individual within that family??

This whole notion that it was Joanna Belcher’s responsibility to protect the family - seems like coercive control to me.

If you don’t do this - I will do this.

When I wrote to my Lib Dem prospective parliamentary candidate he sent me a very nice reply and also forwarded my questions to Liz Barker. Needless to say- no response.

September 2019 WPUK article 'Spousal Consent & the Liberal Democrats'

(extract)
"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/

This whole notion that it was Joanna Belcher’s responsibility to protect the family - seems like coercive control to me.

Scroll down this page to a video of Helen and Joanna having a chat. It's quite revealing.

helenbelcher.uk/en/

Joanna mentions how she had to 'walk on eggshells' before Helen's transition because Helen had 'a very short fuse'.

Some trans people have been forced through long, drawn-out divorce proceedings with no ability to resolve them. The legislation as currently drafted would hand the right of gender recognition solely to such an obstructive spouse, who may delay it, without good purpose, for many years and, potentially, indefinitely.

So the solution to the problem of the (probably fictitious) 'obstructive spouse' is to force numerous women to remain married to their (possibly abusive) husbands even after they have legally 'changed sex'.

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce, with the full GRC granted once that process is completed. I'd like to know why people like Ruth Hunt think this is so unfair.

We won’t have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto

Utter rot.

We won't truly have equal marriage until women are forced into having same sex marriages, when the contract they signed was not that. Really?!

That its made out to be the person cannot transition without their wifes consent..its just utter stupidity and lies, yet claimed over and over again. Jess Phillips was apparently very focused on the spousal veto, yet still did not even understand what the hell it was

Why the hell should women not be able to have a say, when their husband massively changes the terms of their marriage?!

Note, I say husband, as older female transitioners appear nonexistant and it seems only young girls are 'trans', so most affected by this will be women (shock horror!). I guess gay men could be affected also, if their husbands decided to transition, but that will be much rarer I think, than it being women expected to fully support their spouse regardless of behaviour.

I think the other cohort of people who will be affected the most are older lesbians where one party transitions- but yes still women so of course of little importance.

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce

Quite.

Sorry I do not believe even slightly that women are or ever have been abusive with this 'veto' thing. Its just not likely at all. Plus it doesn't stop the person transitioning anyway, just says they cannot 'legally' change sex until the marriage is dissolved. Mind, I think noone should be able to 'legally change sex' anyway..but if it has to be that way, then of course partners should get a say in a change in their own marriage ffs..

1. It is phenomenally disingenuous of RH (Lady Hunt? Does RH use that title, in which case, GTF your Grace) to refer to the husband in the case of a late-transitioning 'trapped' wife as an example. Exactly how many cases of that happening are there? RH is using sex-based sympathy for women to talk about a situation where in reality the person pressing for a change is typically a man with greater cultural power than a woman.

1. It sounds like the next step will be to attach this issue to the no-fault divorce bill that is working its way through Parliament. That bill is desperately needed IMO and has been delayed by Brexit. Cynical and typical of how these bizarre laws are put through.

1. I'm sure I read a post here somewhere about a scenario where removing the forced marriage element of the GRA (I prefer this to the spousal veto) could actually work in trans widows favour. Could that be - I'm not sure how?

I would abolish the Lords just to get RH out of a job. I despise her. Lucky it's not up to me.

I think the other cohort of people who will be affected the most are older lesbians where one party transitions- but yes still women so of course of little importance.

Do these people exist though? I have never heard of older women suddenly deciding they are male and transitioning. I mean its possible it does happen, but..I have not read about it. Seems an entirely male phenomenon.

I do get a lot of lesbians are being convinced that they are actually male, rather than just GNC and lesbian though. Just figured this was mainly younger lesbians, like its mainly young girls in general.

Could be wrong, often am

Surely this could be more easily and fairly resolved by making the gender reassignment of one party grounds for either spouse to apply for an annulment or divorce, with the full GRC granted once that process is completed.

That seems to be the case as things stand. From the WPUK article above, it quotes Women and Equalities report on Transgender Equality:

"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.”

Jess Phillips & Layla Moran were/are both part of Women & Equalities committee. Its peculiar that they've been so comprehensively misdirected.

But now I'm going to throw a spanner in.

Noone can change sex, so in fact there is no change in the nature of the marriage, it remains either single sex or same sex as it started. This is why the GRA had to include s legal ground for divorce in the first place, as otherwise 'transition' in itself could be labelled 'unreasonable behaviour' and that would never do.

If no fault divorce is coming, no need for a specific legal ground for divorce, and that element of the GRA can be left to either on the legislative line anyway.

Aargh 'wither on the legislative vine'

Sorry I do not believe even slightly that women are or ever have been abusive with this 'veto' thing. Its just not likely at all.

Controlling/abusive men will often accuse their partners of abuse when they cease to get their own way. Its entirely likely that a woman saying no to her husbands demands may be described by him as abusive /controlling.
Its the common abuse patterns of projection & DARVO.