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

Also, even if you put aside the point about annulment, why can't the man wait 26 weeks to get his GRC?

Can you tell me more about this? What religious communities are you talking about and how does it impact them?

I wish they'd just fucking repeal the GRA already.

Please read the document I linked from Trans Widows' Voices. I can't copy and paste text from it. There are accounts explaining why it's a problem for some religious women to divorce, as they have to get an annulment to be able to remarry in church in some cases.

The spousal exit clause is essentially just an annulment. OP - would you get rid of annulment altogether now the new no fault divorce is in place?

I wish they'd just fucking repeal the GRA already.

This.

tada👏
thank you for the link
so what I’m reading is that

1. trans person applies for GRC, has to get consent to proceed with full GRC form any spouse. - ensures spouse is told and informed this is happening
2. interim GRC given- allowing spouse to proceed with divorce (now 26 weeks) or annulment - for those who don’t want to divorce as such . Divorce is then done under spousal gender aligning with sex . I assume that’d at least give motivation to trans spouse to not deliberately slow down the divorce process in most cases as well. Which is an issue for any divorcing couple both in terms of stress and expense.

not clear then, has labour proposed how it would work if , in future, GRC given and non trans spouse then divorcing someone who no longer exists legally?

Or Does the marriage cert automatically get changed at GRC point currently - couldn’t find that point in the link

Use some empathy and imagination. Imagine that you are a devout Christian/ Muslim who has been raised to believe that homosexuality is a terrible sin which means you go to hell. Now imagine that you’re a man married to a woman. Suddenly the woman announces that she is changing gender, effective immediately. So although you want to divorce, and will be in 26 weeks, for those 26 weeks, you are now in a homosexual marriage with a man. Perhaps that wouldn’t upset you but to a lot people it’s horrific and socially humiliating.

The spousal veto is needed. To remove it is to subordinate the beliefs and feelings of all other communities to the demands of the transitioning person, and that isn’t ok.

not clear then, has labour proposed how it would work if , in future, GRC given and non trans spouse then divorcing someone who no longer exists legally?

Labour has given zero details about how any of their proposals will work.

Catholics, for example, can’t remarry in church if they’re divorced. Other religious communities would typically ostracise divorced women.

Ok, just for my info…how quickly can this be done? So labour are saying they’d still insist on a doctors signature even if panel is dropped, so in reality how long per it take.

Yep, cross posting at same time, see my later reply. Thanks

Agreed, how it was ever passed is a mystery to me! The law should not be enabling lies.

TBH, I think there are quite probably people who have no faith who would prefer to have a marriage annulled in these circumstances, they might believe that the marriage was not entered into in good faith, or that the other party was being dishonest. Annulment means the marriage didn't exist.

There's a thread here by a women who is trying to divorce her ex using 'no fault' divorce, she can't because she doesn't have his address;

''Since the introduction of no fault divorce in April last year, the thinking is that divorce is now so easy in the UK that there is just no reason at all to give people other ways of getting out of a marriage they don't want to be in. Except...
I had a meeting with a solicitor yesterday, about getting divorced from a man I married in 1999 and left in 2007. Before you say it: no, I can't "automatically" divorce him on grounds of abandonment because it's been so long.
What actually needs to happen is that I need to find out where he lives, so that I can include his address in the petition for divorce. Without this information my petition cannot proceed and will be returned by the court (this has already happened to me).''
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/X8gpr

No😱 I simply didn’t know this is what happens…that was point of my question
i thought that couples still had to divorce anyway

that has now been explained and I’m happy I can now articulate to others why labour is still wrong 🤷🏼‍♀️

Yes, I'm very interested in this thread from a faith-based female perspective. Life has become shit enough as it is, being on the one hand invisible and on the other hand being framed as a right-wing loony, without more unintended and intended consequences grinding us down.

Nowt to do with empathy or imagination.
Just ignorance that it meant annulment was then an option- I thought you still had to divorce but trans spouse couldn’t object
And ignorance that a GRC could be obtained faster than a divorce , now law has been changed. I believed GRC took 2 years to demonstrate you’d lived as trans.

I’ve read enough about “trans widows” on here to be very empathetic and horrified by where it leaves people . And I personally would be devastated if this had happened to me irrespective of my religion or culture (none of which you know btw)

. Please don’t lecture someone on lack of empathy for asking a simple question to ensure I understood the situation I was reading about. You don’t know me

Yep, I don’t disagree that it is far from ideal

as someone who divorced form an abusive realtiohsip, I was appalled to find that in removing the “fault” entirely , means that you don’t have fast track divorces any more. One size fits all at 26 weeks

I divorced in 14 weeks from petition to decree absolute. I used the words abusive and safe guarding in my grounds for divorce, I assume this helped to fast track it (along with fact that ex actually ended up being quite cooperative and finances were easy to deal with) . I was out of my marriage and in my new home in less than 4 months. That right has been removed.

it was, as I said, discussed in the hearing during passage of law. But the government and others argued that abused spouses had other routes to protect them via the police etc. that’s an enormous assumption that abused partners will go to the police. In my case my ex’s abuse was meted out as result of him not taking meds for his sever and enduring mental health condition- he wasn’t even sectioned despite being psychotic and dangerous. What do those hearing the bill think women in my situation would get from the police if I had called them? Do they really think any judge would have excluded him from his home when he could barely look after himself?

so, no I don’t think new laws are perfect. They sorted 2 issues (divorce where no consent being 5 years and reducing 2 year consent to 26 weeks in all circumstances) but created others. And didn’t touch others at all- like how to prevent non cooperative spouses spinning out a divorce for years and making the other person rack up huge debts with solicitors.

The TRAs have done a good job in painting this as something it isn't, which is why FWR is such a useful resource!

Precisely because it's by definition BEFORE the contract change is finalised. Non consenting spouses should not be forced to wait until after for any period.

I don’t know much about it but should it be called the spousal exit clause instead?

Veto does sound misleading

Dropping an exit clause sounds really bad

Veto is used by people wishing to manipulate understanding of the purpose, to position the transitioner as a cruelly punished victim.

Spousal veto has been chosen deliberately for sure.

Spousal - your fault, you're not being kiiiiind

Veto - you're being unkiiiiiiiind and ruining in my life. I just want to pee

Etc

When it's the person "changing gender" who's started trying to change the terms of the contract of marriage. Nothing to do with the spouse.

If this happened to me I definitely would and I'm a big old heathen.