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

She’s the one that wants out of the marriage, yes? So why is she waiting to be booted out instead of booting her spouse out?

Would you think the same if it were the other way round? A man with a spouse transitioning to a transman? That the man should just passively sit there while the transman makes all the decisions?

I would say it is quite similar actually, a man may cross dress for years, decades even before applying for a GRC, the other party to the marriage needs to be officially notified and given time to make a decision which the spousal exit clause does.

Or the man (assuming here it is the man) May hide his transition by only changing his name on documents and concealing those from his spouse. Again the spousal exit clause gives the spouse a notification and time to take action.

So you want the exit clause removed

Why is that good for women?

I’d prefer to have the option to get out of the contract quickly, as it is breached in my view.

Who is worse off if we get rid of the exit clause? Men?

Not sure why men are the priority for you

Why is it a problem for a man to have to wait for an annulment or no fault divorce before he can falsify his birth certificate, exactly?

Oh I don't know.

I for example am not given to arrogantly dismissing the voices and experiences of people who have actually lived through a situation, and providing a lot of pompous heat patting while insisting I know best what they need and what's good for them, insisting my personal reality exists and what they say happened to them in fact didn't and it's all lovely, and then calling them irrational and - what was that other word? Illogical. Yes.

Being utterly devoid of basic compassion and social skills isn't really my thing, I'm usually interested in the voices of all parties, and finding solutions that work equally for all. As opposed to tanking over the top of one group and being quite this much of an arse while trying to press the advantage of another.

But as I say: feature, not a bug. Do crack on, it's helpfully illustrative.

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.

How about (when this is an option) the husband tells the wife during the process and starts divorce proceedings himself if the marriage has broken down? Then he is already divorced at the end of this 2 year period, so no "extra six months" to wait for the precious piece of paper from the Ministry of Truth.

As you have seen, I have exposed every other reason given as an inadequate justification or simply not factual.

You keep talking about political parties and lobbies. I am not a member of any political party or lobby. I am also not a political activist of any sort whatsoever.

Perhaps that is the issue, you are approaching this as a political activist and with all the bias that brings with it. So you assume that of others as well.

As you have seen, I have exposed every other reason given as an inadequate justification or simply not factual.

No you haven't

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.

It says "roughly one". So 8, not 16.

I have exposed every other reason given as an inadequate justification or simply not factual.

😂

No, you really haven't.

And if everything has to be run past an AI Vulcan compassion devoid fact assessment before it can be Truth, there's a whole TON of stuff I'd like you to process next.

Such as: can a person change sex?
Does gender exist?
What is a woman?
Is requiring non consenting others to participate in personal fictions an acceptable thing to do?

I have more.

As you have seen, I have exposed every other reason given as an inadequate justification or simply not factual.

In your own mind perhaps.

You keep talking about political parties and lobbies.

Have a look at the name of the thread.

Actually you are given to just that. After all, your first comment to me after deliberately twisting my point into something completely different, was to go on an arrogant rant dismissing my voice and my experiences with a few insults thrown in for good measure

Fgs, are you really this invested in ensuring this happens to women and they're stripped of all protections against it? Why? Does thinking of that woman trapped and in distress have some kind of value to you? What kind of utter arse forces staying in an unwanted marriage on his wife anyway unless he's an abusive bastard? But all this endless wittering and hairsplitting and sealawyering to spin things against women is a very good demonstration of why this needs to be removed from anyone's hands at all where they can spill their anti-woman punishment agenda all over it to show how very right on they are.

And you’ve never even been in a heterosexual marriage, if this comment of yours is true
I'm exclusively same sex attracted; believe me that I do not agree that a male person at any point is a lesbian.

You have zero experience! And yet you’ve seen fit to pretty much consistently stomp all over my voice and my opinion, when I’m a woman who has been in a heterosexual marriage…I mean what was this bit of arrogant smugness?
It is exceptionally symptomatic of the tone deaf/compassion and empathy free/ lady bountiful/master of the workhouse ethos we've all come to expect of this political lobby when talking to women and reframing their reality and trampling them down to benefit men's sexual freedoms. But it's still bloody revolting to witness in real time. Shameful.

Well just goes to show how apolitical I am as I did not know there was some proposal by the Labour Party.

Is that why you are against it? You are leery of the source?

No one is a priority.
You already have the option to get out of the contract quickly.
You don’t have to wait for an interim GRC to be issued.
If you get rid of it, no one is worse off from what I can see.

No I prefer an exit clause.

I don’t want that removed.

“As you have seen, I have exposed every other reason given as an inadequate justification or simply not factual.”

😂😂😂😂😂 as if! All you’ve done is argue against safeguarding because you can’t imagine any situation which is different from your own. Saying ‘it’ll never happen’ doesn’t make the opposing point of view inadequate.

You have zero experience! And yet you’ve seen fit to pretty much consistently stomp all over my voice and my opinion, when I’m a woman who has been in a heterosexual marriage…I mean what was this bit of arrogant smugness?

And what is your experience regarding the women this removal of the spousal exist clause will affect? Are you one?

You completely deny and dismiss the lived experiences of those who this clause has an impact on whilst trumpeting support for the men for whom the removal of it benefits.

You completely dismiss and deride those who do not wish official records to redefine them as homosexual and having been in a same sex marriage, calling them homophobic and claiming it is just a piece of paper, their feelings on this count for nothing in your eyes.

That is true, I am working on real life possibilities, not the imaginary dystopian ones that are being trotted out. I suppose there is a fair amount of paranoia and phobia at work here.

@Coriolise in your world a man wakes up one day and says to his spouse ‘darling, I’ve decided I’m going to become a woman, you have been notified’ slips on a twin set and pearls and begins filling in the paperwork to get his GRC, and his wife immediately thinks well, this is completely new information to me but despite our years of marriage I immediately know what course I want to take, and starts completing the divorce paperwork. Because human relationships are so easy and straightforward 🙄

If you get rid of it, no one is worse off from what I can see.

That is because you close your eyes and ears to those the exit clause works for, you dismiss and deride their experiences in your rush to be seen as super progressive.

That is true, I am working on real life possibilities, not the imaginary dystopian ones that are being trotted out. I suppose there is a fair amount of paranoia and phobia at work here.

No you are not, you will not listen or learn from those the removal of this clause has a negative impact on, you dismiss and deride them.

This is a good document @Coriolise

It outlines the reasons and gives voices to those impacted

If you read it it could help you revise your position

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

Some transmen seem to think that “living as a man” includes having babies.
Some transwomen seem to think that using their penis to have sex in the normal way (or indeed to rape someone) is “living as a woman”.
So I’m not sure what living as the opposite sex is supposed to mean.

Super progressive?

Only if "super progressive" means oblivious to the impact of your behaviour on other people.

And I'm beginning to think that's exactly what it does mean now across the board.

I did not deny nor dismiss anything, I rightly pointed out that recent law changes have made those now historical experiences less relevant to the OP’s question.

It’s a fact of life that things we once needed, we do not always need in the future.

I don’t agree with your charactering my point about dissonance of being ok to live in a same sex marriage for two years and then have a moral panic about a marriage certificate being updated after those two years to show reality.

Because if you don’t want it on paper, you have had at least two years which is ample time to exit the marriage so imho you do not really need an extra six month pause/decision time added on to the two years you already had all to prevent it showing up on paper.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here. Logically how can anyone justify adding an extra six months? It was once needed because we couldn’t no fault divorce at any time, we were forced to wait and then it was a tight deadline, but that’s not the reality we live under anymore.