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

Re-writing those women's histories when they tell you that your personal reality in which all men tell their wives immediately and keep her fully aware and informed never happened to them.

And then calling abused women 'irrational'.

Can you fit 'hysterical' in there somewhere?

There are plenty of instances in law where parties who will potentially be affected by something have to be officially notified, in many of those cases the people are already aware but there is still a requirement for an official documented notice to be served on them.

It seems reasonable to me that if one party to a marriage is changing their legal sex on documents that the other party should be given official notice and opportunity to leave the marriage as the terms are going to change.

It’s no good saying they would be aware, lots of peoples family set ups differ from the norm, some considerably. Keeping the spousal exit clause guarantees that no one falls through the net and all spouses can say they were given adequate notice.

I have rewritten no one’s personal history. I have merely stated the facts. That to be eligible to apply for a GRC you must openly and socially live as the opposite sex for two years. This requires that the person must tell everyone, must change their prefix, must change their name, their daily appearance. The idea that the average cohabiting spouse would not even notice for the entirety of these two years and would need to be told & informed separately is what is irrational.

These are unusual and interesting word choices and behaviours towards women in this situation from another woman.

But today, we always have the opportunity to leave a marriage for any reason at anytime. So if a notification is kept, it should be a mere formality and not come with the power to delay issuance of a final GRC imho. Because by then, after two years of the man or woman you married living with you as the opposite sex you’d have noticed and have had ample opportunity to leave the marriage if that’s not what you wanted.

I could say the same regarding your posts. ;)

She doesn't need to. She can just do nothing and let him sort it out.

He will get an interim certificate and can go no further until he either persuades his wife she wants to stay married to him or uses the certificate to start the annulment process.

If he does nothing for 6 months he doesn't get granted a full GRC, his interim certificate simply expires and he's back to square one.

You are describing an idealised world, do you understand that some people are underhand, unpleasant, liars, cheats and worse?

No one should be able to falsify their legal documents, this is an exceptional privilege some people are being given and so if they have to wait another six months so their spouse can have some time to leave them then I don’t see that as a huge inconvenience.

This is precisely why the Labour idea doesn't work. It's a contract. I'm not even sure how they'd get it through Parliament, although they managed the GRA so maybe they could, and fuck with everyone's marriage.

That to be eligible to apply for a GRC you must openly and socially live as the opposite sex for two years.

For the time being. Or did I just dream the ongoing campaign to remove this requirement or shorten it to a few months?

It's like an assault on all fronts. We'll remove this protection because you don't need it because you have that have this other protection, oh look we're taking away that other protection too, sorry!

PencilsInSpace · Today 09:41

Coriolise · Today 08:43

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.

She doesn't need to. She can just do nothing and let him sort it out.

He will get an interim certificate and can go no further until he either persuades his wife she wants to stay married to him or uses the certificate to start the annulment process.

If he does nothing for 6 months he doesn't get granted a full GRC, his interim certificate simply expires and he's back to square one.

Now I finally understand, thank you Pencils. His wife cannot stop him. She has no veto.

And she has the choice of:

. go through the divorce process if she cannot bear it any more and he does not try to get a GRC or stops trying to get one.

. stay

. get an automatic annulment if he goes through with getting a GRC. She does not have the hassle of getting a lawyer etc it’s all done for her.

I suppose if she wants to stay married to him when he is a trans woman with a GRC that would be a hassle.

No, in order to demonstrate 2 years of 'living as' the opposite sex, the panel merely requires a few documents in the new name and/or 'gender' to cover the two year period. Anything from passports to gas bills will suffice.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need

It’s 1-2 documents per every 3 months of the 2 year period. Which correlates to 8-16 documents that must be from a variety of sources. Bit more than a few.

If she wants to stay married to him after he gets his GRC she makes a statutory declaration to confirm that she consents to the marriage continuing.

She can just do nothing and let him sort it out.
Wow, you seem to view all women as throughly passive, with no agency or ability to act for themselves. It’s infantilising. Most women don’t just do nothing when in this sort of situation.

So their spouse can have extra time to leave on top of the time they already had. It’s not necessary.

Civil annulment is not automatic, it still requires submission of an application with supporting documents, payment of fees and so on. It is not all done for her, she and her soon to be ex have to do it.

So it's up to him to do those things if he wants his GRC.

Why should she lift a finger to help?

You may think the six month period is unnecessary, I disagree and actually the six months is used in other parts of law too. For example say a wife dies and leaves a Will leaving everything to her husband, anyone can put a caveat in to the court to stop probate being granted for six months, even if they’d have no realistic prospect of a claim succeeding, the husband still has to wait six months for the caveat to expire. It would seem unfair to the husband but the law allows people time to bring a claim.

It's not on women to be support humans for trans-identified males.

We don't have to consent.

Change what exactly about their daily appearance?

Riiiight, so it’s being a “support human” to file for your own divorce.

You seem to have a pic and mix of flash card sound bite comments that you randomly use to respond to points, because your posts are often illogical, irrelevant and disjointed.

Are you hoping this approach will win people over to Labour?

The difference here is no one gets access to the final will two years prior to the persons death. That is there for the reasons of

• you can change your will at any time before death
• the contents of your will are not required to be openly and socially shared
• and despite many doctors having god complexes, we don’t actually get to know the date of our impending death

In short, the six months are there to deal with an unknown becoming suddenly known. That’s not at all similar to the situation of a spouse transitioning for two years prior to being eligible to apply for a GRC which then after that months long process makes them eligible to get a marriage certificate reissued showing a same sex marriage.

The idea we need to keep an extra six months in this process when anyone can divorce at anytime for any reason is no longer justifiable.

The idea we need to keep an extra six months in this process when anyone can divorce at anytime for any reason is no longer justifiable.

Only if you wish the decision on law to be made only on that dimension.

As you have seen, other reasons exist.

I think all you have achieved here is to underscore the perception about Labour being under the thumb of trans lobbies and hard of hearing when it comes to any other perspective.