Spousal Exit Clause: Great news for trans widows

[TinselAngel]

Great news for trans widows, and a vindication of the arguments made by Trans Widows Voices, against the lies and misrepresentations told about the "spousal veto"

Excerpt from the governments response to the Women and Equalities Commission report on reform of the GRA:

30. A marriage or civil partnership is a contract between two individuals, the nature of which cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. For this reason, we considerit is equitable for the "spousal consent" requirement to remain in place.
31. Spousal consent does not mean that a spouse can prevent their partner from securing a GRC. It is a safeguard for the non-transitioning spouse to decide whether they want their marriage or civil partnership to continue before their partner is granted a GRC. It is right that both parties should have an equal say in the future of their marriage or civilpartnership, given transition can fundamentally change its nature.
32. More widely, we anticipate that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which comes into force later this year, will help to reduce conflict in such circumstances

Initial response from Trans Widows Voices here:

twitter.com/transwidows/status/1506989440975134726?s=21

Full report here:

committees.parliament.uk/publications/9415/documents/161226/default/

Ha ha, Nokes will have Kemi on the naughty step again. If she wasn't spending all her energy looking down her nose at women who disagree with her, she's be able to understand the complete illogicality of her positions on all matters relating to the GRC.

So pleased for you, TinselAngel and all the trans widows. I've seen some heartbreaking stuff lately about how you, as a group, are being overlooked, ignored, silenced and gaslit. A significant victory for you here, and hopefully a better understanding in the future within GC circles of just what you go through.

@Collaborate

It's all a bit unnecessary given no fault divorce is about to come in. Anyone married will be able to bring their marriage to an end by ticking a box on a form. It's grandstanding to make this an issue .

The women who actually need this don't think it's 'unnecessary', I would guess they know a lot more about it than you do. To characterise this as 'grandstanding' is unnecessarily rude and unkind.

Anyway - well done Tinsel and co. Good to see this, and the clear rebuttal in it of the lie that this was in any way a 'veto'.

Women are granted permission to not be unilaterally overruled by their partner and given a say in whether or not they want to be married, and this makes Noakes Sad?

There are so many people who really missed their century aren't there? A few centuries earlier and they could have ducking stools and scolds' bridles and witchfinders and been so much happier....

Fuck them, I'm having a day of grandstanding, I've earned it.

@Collaborate

It's all a bit unnecessary given no fault divorce is about to come in. Anyone married will be able to bring their marriage to an end by ticking a box on a form. It's grandstanding to make this an issue .

Grandstanding?? These bloody amazing women like @TinselAngel at not the 'grandstanding (grandstandees?!)

@TinselAngel

Fuck them, I'm having a day of grandstanding, I've earned it.

indeed you have. 👏 👏

If we could do you a virtual 'Mexican wave' we would.

It's not us who made it an issue either.

👏 👏

Too right. A Grandstanding Mexican Wave right at ya!

Main offender

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-wont-have-truly-equal-marriage-until-we-get-rid-spousal-veto

I've now got the Grandstand theme tune in my head.

Well done tinsel and thanks

@Collaborate

It's all a bit unnecessary given no fault divorce is about to come in. Anyone married will be able to bring their marriage to an end by ticking a box on a form. It's grandstanding to make this an issue .

Do come back and celebrate that with us then, yeah?

Meanwhile...

[quote TinselAngel]Main offender

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-wont-have-truly-equal-marriage-until-we-get-rid-spousal-veto[/quote]
What a pile of steaming bobbins. All the contract stuff is rubbish. You can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract such that the thing being delivered (in this case, a heterosexual marriage lasting until one spouse dies) becomes something else completely (a same sex marriage), which the other party to the contract has not agreed to. It's nothing like the same as simply changing your name, where all other parts of the contract, including the item being delivered and the parties themselves (who are still the same people even after a name change) remain the same.

Brilliant news!

Noakes needs her head read. Forcing your spouse to accept your unilateral changes to the marriage contract can only be an abusive tactic. BT can’t even do it with broadband prices FFS.

Fantastic news; and of course it's not grandstanding to celebrate the fact that women cannot be trapped in a Kafkaesque legal situation that they did not create, that could have very serious consequenses for them.

Today Matthew, I'm
Des Lynham.

Amazing news.

Congratulations, I'm pleased your hard work has paid off.

Bravo Tinsel and

I don't know why anyone would think it's a sad day when someone can't divorce their OH for any reason.

It's great work and an entirely reasonable and equal-rights-driven decision. It's exhausting fighting these battles and again Tinsel you deserve big thanks and congratulations.

Tinsel. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🍷🍷🍷🏅

Well done Tinsel. Genuinely chuffed to hear this.

I've now got the Grandstand theme tune in my head.

Congratulations Tinsel & other transwidows.

It's utterly bonkers you had to have this fight, but there you are. You did, and you won.