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

Yup, huge agree. And of course the not even seeing questions, let alone answering them

It says so much, without saying a word.
Illuminating for sure.

Re: Religious annulment and legal annulment being entirely separate,

I looked up the Catholic annulment system and saw it is difficult, detailed, and looks for proof. It seems to me very possible that having an official legal annulment based on the change of the other spouse’s gender would in practice help to add the proof and enable the process to go more smoothly.

On an emotional level too, imo, the official annulment is a recognition of how seriously and absolutely the contract was made void. All sorts of breaches of contract happen in marriages with no annulment following from that, but here it is if a basic premise has been cast away.

On the other hand might that be because of the old idea that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman?

The whole concept of the change of gender voiding the marriage contract probably comes from the presumption 2004 that marriage is, of necessity, a union of male and female (originally for potential procreation), given that the GRA was devised in the first place to circumvent this premise with an illusion of male and female.

This is a tangent, but how peculiar and illogical not only to have set up a legal lie, but to have made it such that, until same sex marriage became possible, only gay people who said they were the opposite sex got to get married.

I wonder if many spouses within same sex marriages have changed their gender?

Presumably, there is not the clarity of an annulment for those whose spouses just decide Gender Reassignment, with no GRC, is enough for them.

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.

That doesn't really work for them either. If TWAW and always were, so the person was always female, then 'I take you to be my husband' would never have formed a valid contract in the first place.

The only way the contract could default to continuing would be if you actually didn't believe TWAW at all. But in that case the whole GRC thing is a lie, and a woman shouldn't be compelled to be contractually tied into someone else's lie.

I think it's really much more helpful to think of it as a marriage continuation clause. You can opt to continue the marriage despite the change in terms if both parties agree. Otherwise it will be dissolved. It can't just be rendered void because of the impact on both parties financial interests and any kids' needs, so here are the arrangements for dissolving it in an orderly manner protecting everyone's rights as much as possible, with minimal hold up to the GRC.

I was looking at what’s been happening in Israel for Jewish women, given ‘transgender rights’ (for men, mostly) have taken priority over gay rights for all LGB, and found this gem from Maavarim (a kind of Israeli Stonewall):

“any improvement in the access of people on the transgender spectrum to suitable identity documents is a significant step on the road to a better reality for us all.”

The whole concept of the change of gender voiding the marriage contract probably comes from the presumption 2004 that marriage is, of necessity, a union of male and female (originally for potential procreation), given that the GRA was devised in the first place to circumvent this premise with an illusion of male and female.

This is a tangent, but how peculiar and illogical not only to have set up a legal lie, but to have made it such that, until same sex marriage became possible, only gay people who said they were the opposite sex got to get married.

Yes, a huge motivation for the GRA was to avoid having to make same sex marriage legal.

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

(attached some Hansard screenshots from the above thread for those who can't access twitter)

When the GRA first came in any married applicant had to dissolve their marriage before being granted a full GRC, otherwise it would have resulted in a 'same sex' marriage. The spousal consent clause was a new bit added after we got equal marriage so that spouses could if they chose continue to remain married.

It was never the default that these marriages would continue.

And yes, this means that trans people were allowed (actual) same sex marriage around a decade before everyone else - worth remembering when LGB people are told they 'owe their rights to trans people.'

PencilsInSpace · Today 09:16

Thank you for your answers about the law.

Re:
And yes, this means that trans people were allowed (actual) same sex marriage around a decade before everyone else - worth remembering when LGB people are told they 'owe their rights to trans people.'

Everyone is definitely forgetting this. It is absolutely extraordinary.
Though this is off the subject of the OP, forgive me for repeating:

1. A legal lie was set up so a few transsexuals could have an (actual) same sex marriage, precisely because same sex marriage was considered to be an impossible contradiction in terms!
2. Only transpeople were allowed same sex marriage. No gay people were being allowed this - a bit like a vulnerable (male) transwoman may be allowed in a female prison, but a vulnerable gay man would not be.

It’s bizarre to me this was Labour’s approach. It’s created such huge issues that we seemingly can’t reverse

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.

Why the assumption that the spouse has a minimum of two years notice of the intention to get a GRC?

Its feasible that their partner change some id without the spouse knowing, or they could say that they never intend to obtain a GRC, just change ID.

There have been interim GRC granted that were never converted into a full GRC, so there are cases where the process was competed without the spouse knowing or agreeing to the marriage change.

Why too has there then been the suggestion - I think in Scotland - of a requirement to inform the spouse of the transition as part of a GRC (this to replace the right to escape the marriage here if wanted) ?

If every single transitioner will absolutely definitely always do the nice and right thing and give their partner the full two years notice, why would this have been popped in to proposed legislation? And shouldn't the other partner have a little bit more protection than the hope of having a nice partner who will do the right thing?