What about trans widows in Scotland now?

[TinselAngel]

From what I can work out, for women in Scotland now, given spousal consent was got rid of there under the radar, when equal marriage was introduced, after 3 months, your husband will be able to become your wife and there's nothing you can do about it.

This is the English Spousal Exit Clause all over again with me explaining things and people not listening.

I understand that in Scotland you can take your interim GRC to the magistrates court and get it upgraded to a full GRC without spousal consent.

In England and Wales the only purpose of the interim GRC is to enable the marriage to be ended, if that's what one party or both parties wish.

I've just been trawling through the explanatory notes

www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/introduced/explanatory-notes-accessible.pdf

As far as I can make out, on application:

Applicant must say if they are married and whether they want the marriage to continue or not.

Must include stat dec from the spouse to say they want the marriage to continue, or stat dec from the applicant saying no such declaration is included.

If no spousal stat dec is included, an interim GRC will be issued after the 3 month reflection period.

There is no requirement for registrar general to notify the spouse that an interim GRC has been issued.

Applicant must apply for a full GRC within 6 months of interim GRC being granted. No minimum time limit so they could apply the next day.

Registrar general or sheriff must notify spouse of this application. This may be the first time spouse is made aware.

Full GRC will be granted if applicant has made a stat dec to say they want the marriage to continue, either as part of the original application or at this stage. No requirement for spouse to agree.

Registrar general or sheriff must notify spouse if full GRC is granted.

Issuing of an interim GRC is grounds for divorce.

In cases where spouse has not agreed it continues to be grounds for divorce after a full GRC has been issued.

So yes, the whole thing could happen with the spouse only being notified in the final stages and no time to end the marriage before the contract is changed without consent.

Yes, this is where the real damage was done (very quietly!)

There is not much change on paper to spousal considerations in this bill but it makes a huge difference that all the evidence requirements have been scrapped. A spouse is far more likely to be aware of what's happening if the applicant has to collect 2 years worth of evidence and get two medical reports before applying.

Now, this literally could just be sprung on her with only a right to be notified at the final stage.

Thanks Space. It's horrifying that as a wife you might not know until it's a fait accompli. This is what the relentless propaganda about the "spousal veto" was always aiming to achieve.

Thank you for the detailed explanation LangClegsInSpace
Surely living in one’s acquired gender (whatever that means) to gain the interim GRC means that one’s spouse must be aware within those three months or the conditions of the interim GRC are not met. I mean, you cannot continue as a husband at the same time as carrying out the three month period of reflection or are there no requirements to change anything? Just declare a new gender identity?
(I take the point that there is no statutory requirement to inform one’s spouse).

In some ways, it’s similar to finding out your spouse has committed adultery. One has to accept it or file for divorce. You are left with a legal mess and costs you did not create.

You said it yourself, @Ameadowwalk , 'whatever that means'.

The applicant must sign a statutory declaration to say they have been 'living in their acquired gender' for three months but there is no definition of what that means or any requirement to change anything or provide any evidence.

I mean, you cannot continue as a husband at the same time as carrying out the three month period of reflection or are there no requirements to change anything?
If it's self ID then I don't see how there can be a requirement to change anything?

In some ways, it’s similar to finding out your spouse has committed adultery. One has to accept it or file for divorce. You are left with a legal mess and costs you did not create.
One of the main differences is that if your spouse had committed adultery you'd be expected to be devastated and want a divorce, if your spouse "changes gender" you're supposed to applaud them for being stunning and brave.

Graham Simpson put it well in the third stage debates:

The issue is that, if the bill passes as it is, we will have a system of self-ID. All that a person would have to do is make a declaration. I could declare that I was a woman. I could tell people now, “I’m a woman.” I am not a woman, but I could tell people that. If anyone said, “Prove it”, I would not have to prove it. Under this bill, all I would have to do is say, “I’m a woman” and apply for a certificate. No evidence would be required other than my saying, “I’m a woman.” If someone were to challenge that and say, “No, you are not. You have obtained that certificate by fraud,” surely they would have to prove that I was not a woman. However, I would not have had to present any evidence other than that of stating the fact—or not—that I was a woman. Therefore, how could a fraud have been committed?

People are looking puzzled by that. I am puzzled by the bill, let me tell you.

www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-21-12-2022?meeting=14069&iob=127404#orscontributions_M3994E303P790C2453938

That’s a fair point, I was thinking in legal terms.

It's not even very like it legally, given you'll subsequently be struggling to get a fair share of assets from somebody who has changed their name.

It’s a 50/50 split of assets in Scotland accrued from the start of the marriage to the date of separation. To get divorced, you need to provide your marriage certificate and the date of the marriage and when you separated and details of assets and debts of each party to the solicitors so the split can be calculated who owes what. Therefore the details of the assets would be provided in the name on the marriage certificate, surely, and the GRC. You have the problem in a regular divorce that people can hide assets - my ex had them in overseas accounts which he did not declare. But you don’t stop owning a marital home or being due a pension because you change your gender, do you, so these things would be taken into consideration.

Agreed name changing doesn't affect legal ownership but anecdotally trans widows have said it can make the whole thing more difficult.

There seems to be a double standard to me, in that, to the transitioning person, it's a huge, huge, vitally important transformation in their life; but to their spouse, it's something quite normal, quite understandable, nothing to see here, don't make a scene or fuss about it at all.

Considering that the racism/trans link (in terms of how people treat you) has already been widely claimed by those with an agenda, I can see this eventually being pushed politically to the point where, if you object to something extremely significant and clearly marriage-changing (ending) such as your spouse declaring a changed gender identity and a desire to live as the opposite sex, you will be socially considered the equivalent of a racist who wants to divorce their spouse because they've taken an Ancestry DNA test and discovered that they had a black great grandparent.

Am I missing it, or do the explanatory notes NOT cover:

• scenario where an MtF gets a GRC, and wants to marry a male
• wants to do so in a Catholic Church

Does the Catholic Church get to say no if they deem it a same-sex marriage? What happens outside Scotland in such a scenario, in addition?

Do the notes only cover people ALREADY married? If so, and it missed those not yet married, isn't this another reason to use S35 and stop it going for royal assent?

Please understand I am not minimising the trans widow concerns, I'm trying to understand just how much has been covered and how much has been missed in the Bill! Already written to my MP, but thinking of other things to say in case I do get a meeting in the New Year.

Wouldn't that be up to the church rather than the government?

Thank you, I need to go off and dig. I thought that - in England at least - the church was "allowed" not to conduct same-sex marriages. So I wondered what happens if the GRC is already awarded AND there's the Haldane judgement (seemingly saying it's your legal sex all the time - except in the mystery circumstances when it's not!).

Also thank you for all the work you've done, Tinsel. I've learnt a lot from it

Might be worth looking what happens in Ireland with the Catholic Church there given they have self ID now?

I completely and utterly agree. But I do not trust judges to universally agree. If they're scared of being deemed transphobic, might they deny the petition?

This is all horrific.

The original purpose of the GRA 2004 was to allow same sex marriage for a tiny, special group of people without having to legalise it for everyone (L & G had to wait around a further 10 years for equal marriage). Your scenario was exactly what they had in mind.

However, there is an exception in the EA that allows ministers of all religions, including the catholic church, to refuse to marry a couple if they believe one of the parties has changed their legal sex through the GRA:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/6

I don't think the Haldane judgment could touch this exception, it's about the only place the GRA is specifically mentioned in the EA.

Thank you Lang

I don’t dispute that given you have more experience of this than me.

Are you talking about the legal aspect or the sacramental aspect of Catholic Church saying yes/no to officiating such marriages? Sacramentally, prob no, unless there are significant doctrinal changes made by the progressive element that wants to liberalise Catholic doctrine on marriage (traditional Catholic doctrine protective of women in this area, so liberalisation of doctrine would not be good for us). legally, no idea.