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

@Coriolise
She would know for at least two years that that is where her relationship is going because, again to be eligible to apply the applicant must have lived a minimum of 2yrs openly and socially as the opposite sex. That’s not something you can hide from a spouse.

have a look at the transwidows website. It’s got plenty of accounts of men doing precisely that- concealing from their wives what they’re up to, disguising it as a fetish, doing lots to deceive their spouse.

It is but we'll get more pretzel twisting and accusations of bad faith because @Coriolise will never admit to having been caught out for their dishonesty, same old, same old.

Paperwork being fair game when it's not a transitioners essential paperwork. Then the words on it are life and death

But of course, it's men you see and any woman who wants records to accurately depict their marriage as it ends is just homophobic and just shouldn't care that in official records they are described as a lesbian and have been in a same sex marriage. Women must put up and shut up yet again.

It's not even actually about the woman involved.

It's about anyone that argues for the retention of consent. It can be used to smear anyone wanting to keep it as homophobic bigots.

At least they have plopped their hypocrisy down here.

On another note, as I said upthread, I don't want to be married/in a relationship with a woman, if my DH had announced that he was now 'female' I would have considered that he had married me fraudulently or not in good faith and consequently wanted the marriage to be annulled. i.e as though it had never happened. I would not have married him if i had any idea that he harboured those feelings. I would not want a divorce, for the reasons given. I suspect other women might feel the same.
And I agree that we should not be mollifying men.

...if their homophobia meant they couldn’t stand to have been in a same sex marriage on paper.

''Do as I say or I will call you bad names'' is an example of coercion.

She would know for at least two years that that is where her relationship is going because, again to be eligible to apply the applicant must have lived a minimum of 2yrs openly and socially as the opposite sex. That’s not something you can hide from a spouse.

Yes, and not all of these men get a GRC, so she wouldn't necessarily know that was on the cards.

Going by the other threads it's a train spotting, barrack room lawyer, TW collective.

Say no more.

“I’m saying if you don’t want to have a same sex marriage on paper, then don’t live for two years in what is essentially a same sex marriage”

So have I got the sequence of arguments right?

Midnight = the homophobia of not wanting to be in a same sex marriage on paper.

Morning = I never said that not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is homophobic!

In response to being presented with the precise quote = When I used the word “homophobia” as the reason for a person not wanting to “have been in a same sex marriage on paper” I wasn’t saying that not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is homophobic, oh no! Clearly, it’s not homophobic to not want to be in a same sex marriage, but it is homophobia to not want to have been in a same sex marriage on paper. Massive distinction. Entirely different. You’re all misrepresenting what I said.

I’m honest and accurate, me. Not like you lot.

Afternoon on return from work in a university gender studies department = living in (a biologically and legally) heterosexual marriage for two years with a spouse who self describes as a member of the opposite sex is living in “essentially a same sex marriage” and if you don’t want a piece of paper in the future to declare it legally a same sex marriage on paper as well as essentially a same sex marriage then the only way to avoid my homophobia judgement being bestowed upon you is to hurry up and get divorced before your husband manages to apply for a GRC.

I think those were the main arguments.

Some observations.

On terminology, “essentially” appears to mean “on Gender Identity Theory planet”

On rationale, the rationale appears to be:
i) not wanting to be in a same sex marriage is ok;
ii) not wanting to have been in a same sex marriage on paper is homophobia;
iii) a heterosexual marriage which is still legally a heterosexual marriage becomes, in the world view of the poster, essentially a same sex marriage from the instant that one spouse verbally asserts it to be so;
iv) any wife who puts up with that situation for any length of time would - in the eyes of the poster - be unreasonable to, and therefore loses the right to, object to their heterosexual marriage being restrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same sex marriage by the state at the behest of their spouse. (In other words the wife’s consent or lack of consent becomes irrelevant. She is assumed to have given her consent, tacitly and forever. Withdrawing it is therefore unreasonable and an unfair infringement on the entitlements of the transitioning spouse.)
v) the poster regards the Spousal Exit Clause as unnecessary other than as a means of preventing a heterosexual marriage from being being retrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same sex marriage without both spouses’ consent;
vi) the poster regards not wanting false declarations about whether your marriage was heterosexual or same sex being given legal status by the State to be “not wanting to have been in a same sex marriage on paper”, and therefore in their world view, homophobia;
vii) by mispresenting a concern for truth and accuracy as homophobia, the poster seek to position victim blaming as the moral high ground whilst absolving the spouse who has instigated the whole thing from any responsibility or expectation of consideration towards their wife;
viii) using the spousal exit clause in the GRA as a means to avoid your heterosexual marriage being retrospectively and inaccurately redesignated as a same marriage by the state is therefore - in the poster’s world view - homophobia, unnecessary, and an unreasonable withdrawal of assumed consent, and must be abolished.

I think those are the main arguments you are up against TinselAngel

And the labour party are right behind all that.

“It's about anyone that argues for the retention of consent.”

That’s where I got to when I pulled all the arguments together in one post (19.45 above, took me ages due to my slow typing).

That entire poster’s argument is constructed to present a requirement for both spouses to formally and legally confirm their consent to changing the nature/ status of their marriage as unreasonable, unnecessary and motivated by homophobia.

It is also rather demeaning to homosexuals to have heterosexuals described and recorded as homosexual and being in a same sex marriage when they are not.

It's another one of those putting a lie on an official record that the GI Lobby like to do, no wonder @Coriolise is all in favour just can't stop that dishonesty it is a feature not a bug. The issue here is that the lie is about someone else's sexuality and marriage, but hey that person is only a woman and they don't count.

It was hilarious. They left immediately once they'd been rumbled.

Yeah, 'why didn't she just leave?'

I'm sure you are well aware that 'TWO YEARS of living openly as the opposite sex' means nothing more than changing your name on your passport, driver's licence, bills etc.

Everyone knows that abusive men are always completely open with their wives about household finances as well as their own personal correspondence

Thank you for your long post, @LoobiJee, which I'm now going to read through again thoroughly.

So your answer to this is that while over 2yrs is not enough time for her to “jist leave”, the paltry 6 months given by the spousal veto is more enough time for her to “just leave”?§

Hilarious, especially since we are not talking about abusive relationships at all.

I agree with your summary, minus the sarcastic snipes up until item (iv)

Past that point, that’s not my argument, that’s a disgusting twisted perversion of your own imagination.

The average timescale for a divorce in the U.K. from submitting papers to decree absolute is 7 months.

That’s just the end stage, as many who will have been through even straightforward divorces will know. It’s what leads up to this that is gruelling, emotionally devastating and where any children involved can be greatly harmed, especially in this particular situation.

I'd suggest that not only is such a marriage abusive, but it also gaslighting on a masssive scale.

You say you are a woman - but that is not the sense I get at all. You are patronising ( keep suggesting people are " illogical" "not rational") dismissive and only focussed on what one party wants.

I don't think think they have the slightest awareness of what they are proposing. They are just repeating Stonewall's list of demands. They need to be made aware.

“There literally is no way a spouse could secretly start living openly and socially as the opposite sex without their wife noticing.”

There are many many men who (gasp) lie about the two years of "living as a woman"
Some of them documented on the farms even. Some of them infamously filmed "as a man/male" whilst stating they were living as a woman.
So ummm yeah people lie, who knew. Maybe instead of all this utter guff about homophobia and documents only being important to one person and unilaterally changing a marriage.
Hows about we get rid of the gra which is a bad law and now completely unnecessary.

That would only be true if the spouse knowingly concealed their sexuality or gender identity, which is vanishingly rare. Almost all spouses in heterosexual marriages that realise later in life that they are homosexual or transgender are victims of conversion therapy or were gaslit themselves growing up into thinking they were straight or cisgender.

Yes I am a woman. I am female. I have XX chromosomes. I have birthed babies. I have been married.

However, it is also true people are not making logical arguments and descending into irrational personal attacks.

It's very nature is abusive.

it's gaslighting, it's being dishonest ,it's cruel to the partner who married in 'good faith,it's abusive, it's lots of things, BUT not homophobic.
Please @Coriolise stop .

Yeah. This attitude and behaviour towards women isn't a bug, it's the main feature. Being done directly to women on this thread who have lived through this and been abused.

And yet we're supposed to all run around like headless chickens about saying anything that might be a bit insensitive or distressing to a person with a TQ+ identity, and to value and guard their emotions, voice and trauma at all times.

Inequality of standards = abusive relationship.

To be honest, your explanation of AGP does not tally with the many accounts of this condition ( also, having read Grayson Perry's memoir). There are many women who post here who have been, or who still are, marrried to such men. Though, I get it that some men who are in fact same sex attracted deep down do get married becaue they want to have a family and children ( See Philip Schofield)