Spousal veto - labour proposal , is it really a problem now?

[Appleofmyeye2023]

Hi, did look to see if thread raised on this.
with the news yesterday about labour change in direction, but still wanting to “simplify” GRC process, they confirmed that they would still want to remove the “spousal consent” part. Obviously seen a fair amount of outcry on this.

whilst I completely agree that no one should be required to stay married when the terms of their marriage have shifted , is this need for spousal veto to end the marriage still a problem given the divorce law changes last year.

historically, the need for spousal veto was obvious. The newly trans spouse could refuse to consent to a divorce and force the other spouse to 5 years of marriage before the marriage could be divorced. Even if the trans spouse agreed , it would take 2 years plus if adultry hadn’t been committed. Undoubtedly a cruel and unnecessary burden on a spouse who didn’t want to remain in marriage to a spouse who wanted to change genders.

But, divorce laws have changed. Irrespective of any behaviours or consent of either party, a divorce now goes through a single “no blame” process and timeline. No matter what the real reason for divorce is there is now a minimum of 26 weeks time. Neither party can object. It is enough for just one party to say the marriage has irreparably broken down.

now we can argue that 26 weeks is still too long in these circumstances. When I saw the changes I was quite shocked as, imho, more critically it means people in abusive marriages have to also wait 26 weeks now, whereas in my case I completed divorce in 14 weeks due to safe guarding issues. But, this was debated and government determined that other safe guarding processes were available such as abatement orders etc

so, taking time line aside, we are now in situation that no trans partner can force a marriage to continue for years because they don’t consent to the petition. Divorce WILL proceed whatever the circumstances and whatever the views of the non petitioner

Either I’m missing something here , or I’m right in thinking that the spousal veto is no longer required, irrespective of any changes to the GRC.

can anyone explain to me why the spousal veto is still needed please

I suppose it will depend on whether transition has completed in that time. In which case the divorcing wife will be notionally divorcing a woman. Which if you are heterosexual and had married a male would be adding insult to injury.

the spousal consent as I understand it enables divorce before that stage, so the wife is not recorded as having divorced a woman.

Inaccurately calling it a “spousal veto” instead of accurately calling it the “spousal exit clause” is a campaign tactic by the Men’s Sexual Entitlement lobbyists.

That's no help for women from certain religious communities though, who can't divorce within their faith, and use the current process to get an annulment instead.

Back when the changes to the spousal consent were first mooted I too couldn't see why it was an issue. After all the issuing of GRC would no longer dissolve the marriage, therefore no consent from the spouse was needed.

However my mind was changed when I realised that the marriage certificate would be reissued. It didn't sit right with me that one party could change the marriage contract without the consent of the other.

Of course, from having read the trans widows thread there are other reasons why consent should be required.

Framing it as a veto is incorrect. The transperson can get an interim certificate, they can change all their personal documents and both medically and socially transition.

It's an exit clause not a veto, and extremely important for women who, for religious or cultural reasons, can't/won't divorce.

Yes it is important. Marriage is a contract, and in these scenarios, that contract has been broken. This would not only be the wrong thing to do to women who cannot remain married in such circumstances but would have much wider ramifications for the contract of marriage. It affects everyone's marriage, if that marriage needs to end in divorce.

Yeah this. Especially given the change in divorce law. Nobody is going to be prevented from transitioning for years, are they?

Its a massive problem. You can't divorce someone that no longer exists.

Marriage is a legal contract if one of the people in the marriage now say they are now the opposite sex that original contract has been broken, off course you should be able to exit the contract ( marriage)

Ok, sorry, not my intent.
putting the semantics to one side please
what am I missing here re rights to divorce trans spouse without need to consent

The point is not about keeping someone locked in a marriage, it is about forcing someone to be in a homosexual marriage when they entered a heterosexual marriage. So before the legal sex of one partner can change, the other is allowed to exit the marriage.

I don’t disagree, but that was always case and still is, even if this new legislation did go through

Ok, so I’m reading something about a GRC gives rights to trans spouse to reissue the marriage certificate or that the person named on cert ceases to exist.
can someone please explain fully what this is and Then I can understand.
I’m mostly getting comments that are short and dismissive…I’m not attacking any rights that spouses have, I simply am genuinely ignorant of why this still matters and want a detailed and logical explanation that I can then explain to others.

im not alone in thinking that the marriage exists, to opt out you have to divorce anyway, and the original point was to prevent non consenting partners to divorce irrespective of consent given.

help me understand here…are you saying that this law means marriages are dissolved without divorce?

I don't properly understand this, either. Does the current process void the marriage entirely, or is it a divorce?

Agree

I can't copy and paste text for some reason but read section 2 of Trans Widows' Voices written submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16197/pdf/#:~:text=4.4%20The%20Spousal%20Exit%20Clause,resisted%20and%20treated%20with%20suspicion.

It allows an annulment. This is needed by some women who cannot divorce for religious reasons.

are you saying that this law means marriages are dissolved without divorce?
No; currently, your husband cannot fully legally transition without your consent. Until you consent he is issued with an interim GRC.
Transitioning and obtaining a GRC creates an entirely new identity. New name, new documents.

Personally I think that child support should be ring fenced and the marriage automatically annulled. The wife can always re-marry after he obtains his GRC, if she chooses.

I’m not debating whether it’s right to allow the non consenting person to exit the contract 🤦‍♀️ of course I agree with that. There’s no debate in that for most humane people

what my question is about is the logistics of ending the marriage.

Why do we still need the exit clause if divorce, since last year, is now no fault, and faster and no trans person can coercively control the none consenting spouse into remaining in a marriage for 5 years against their will.

Of course.

My, possibly inaccurate, understanding is that a spousal 'sex change' is an automatic cause for divorce - that is, the spouse can't contest it and the court must grant it.

However, that would take six months or longer. With 'no cause' divorce now in effect, anyone can divorce without the distressing process of demonstrating cause. And it will take six months, same or better than before.

The remarks about people whose religions impede divorce have made me think I was wrong and the marriage is regarded as void, rather than ended. In that case, it does need further examination.

Because within that 26 weeks one partner can legally change sex and force the other partner to be in a homosexual marriage!

You will see the exact legal position in the document I linked.

Ah, thanks @Thelnebriati. Going to stop cross-posting now 😬

Are you clear on it now OP?

That’s still not answering the question. I know they currently can’t fully transition,
but my question still remains - if you’re going to divorce anyway why does this make any difference now that divorce is all “fast track” and no blame anyway

really? Am I being exceptionally thick here …I thought this was a simple question …why does it still matter in terms of the logistics of ending the marriage as quickly as possible

I answered your question, @Appleofmyeye2023