Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

359 replies

Appleofmyeye2023 · 25/07/2023 11:36

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 12:49

Exactly @Hepwo super progressive means shit all over women at every opportunity.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 12:50

GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 12:41

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.

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 12:50

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

100 percent agree. No matter what these men feel they aren't women.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 12:52

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.

The man has had those two years, if not even longer to exit his marriage.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 12:53

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 11:57

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?

Show quote history

the person changing their legal sex is the one altering the contract they have entered into with their spouse

therefore the primary admin burden should fall to them surely?

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 12:53

CaramelMac · 27/07/2023 12:38

@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 🙄

Going off your scenario here, she has 2years from then to decide because you can’t wake up one day, realise you are trans and immediately apply for a GRA. How does 2yrs and 6mos make such a difference?

SunnyEgg · 27/07/2023 12:53

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 12:49

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.

Show quote history

‘We are submitting evidence because we are the cohort that the Spousal Exit Clause is designed to protect. It is essential that no reform is considered without our voices first being heard’

From the document linked in pp. Can you at least listen to what women are saying?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 12:54

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

I'm sure you are capable of reading what she clearly said. She is predicting that it will have a negative impact, for the many reasons given. If you don't support it being removed, why are you even banging on about it?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 12:56

From the document linked in pp. Can you at least listen to what women are saying?

I don't see much point engaging with bad faith arguments from posters who ignore when their own points have been refuted.

GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 12:57

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

How ironic when all of this angst about the removal of the exit clause is because of the feelings of the transitioning person and their feelings are paramount throughout including in the process of transitioning or applying for a GRC, their feelings count, no-one else's does.

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.

You would say that wouldn't you. That updated marriage certificate does not show reality.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:00

Again, I'm not interested in the views of unaffected people. I posted the written submission to the WESC from Trans Widows Voices. I'm much more interested in hearing from TinselAngel and other trans widows about how this is important to them.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:00

I'm going to repeat that point.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Shall we apply this to all aspects of the Gender Recognition Act?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:00

Let's!

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 12:53

the person changing their legal sex is the one altering the contract they have entered into with their spouse

therefore the primary admin burden should fall to them surely?

Show quote history

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:00

I'm going to repeat that point.

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Shall we apply this to all aspects of the Gender Recognition Act?

Yes, I’m all for that too,

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:02

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Show quote history

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

SunnyEgg · 27/07/2023 13:02

Feelings are not what we should be ruled by here.

Well in that case let’s all acknowledge the fact that you can’t change sex and scrap the GRA

Fine.

GailBlancheViola · 27/07/2023 13:02

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 12:50

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

Show quote history

My statement is perfectly clear just like yours that deemed people homophobic for not wanting their marriage redefined.

If you want to split hairs:

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

Happy now?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:02

No, the "transitioner" has a moral obligation to consult his (most often) wife about this change. He can then do the decent thing and divorce her. Or not, and suck up the extra six months at the end.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:03

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

Yes, I’m all for that too,

Show quote history

So we can repeal the feelings certificate then?

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/07/2023 13:06

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:01

It doesn’t matter who files, my point is that at some point during the two year pre eligibility phase its more than enough time for a decision to stay or go to be made & communicated & divorce papers filed. If it’s all mutual and friendly, then yeah likely the transitioner will do it for them both, but often the trabsitioner wants to stay and the other doesn’t want to stay, in which case it is their responsibility to file for divorce.

Show quote history

If somebody wants to fundamentally alter a contract it makes complete sense to me that they are not able to proceed until the other party confirms that they're happy with the change, or has been released from the contract

common sense, surely?

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:07

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 12:54

The clause hasn’t been removed, so how can you say anyone has suffered a negative impact? Could you word what you meant a bit more clearly.

I'm sure you are capable of reading what she clearly said. She is predicting that it will have a negative impact, for the many reasons given. If you don't support it being removed, why are you even banging on about it?

Oh, the reasons I already do not agree with…so more of the same.

We are going in circles here. Before the no fault divorce we only had those six months from the veto clause to do a divorce/annulment. We had to wait for the interim GRA to even file for it and the six months was a deadline to submit the papers. It was a one time only window of opportunity.

But that was then.

Now we are not forced to wait, we can file at anytime and we have a minimum of two years from when we’d know our spouse was transitioning to when the GRA would be issued. It’s so much better than before such that I still think that an extra six months on top is simply not needed any more.

Im sorry but I’m not going to change my mind.

Hepwo · 27/07/2023 13:09

Nobody gives a shit if you change your mind or not, we are just fascinated by your approach. It is entirely in keeping.

Coriolise · 27/07/2023 13:09

Oh and I might as well add all the name calling, personal attacks and no factual information likely did influence my decision to stick with my current opinion.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/07/2023 13:09

If somebody wants to fundamentally alter a contract it makes complete sense to me that they are not able to proceed until the other party confirms that they're happy with the change, or has been released from the contract

Absolutely. What the trans lobby would like is no admission that the contract is changing in any way, because the person being male (or female but rarely) isn't something which should ever be acknowledged. It's completely irrelevant that these two people are getting a divorce, nothing to see here.