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

Veto suggests one party is exercising a control over another, when I heard it I thought veto their gender ID

Exit is you’ve unilaterally changed our contract so it’s breached

Labour want to scrap it. Scrapping an exit route is really bad!

Agreed, I've never been in this situation and am now vanishingly unlikely to be, but putting myself in others shoes, I would think the same. And annulment would be a better way.

Faith or no faith, I'd rather it officially never happened.

And to portray the partner who does not wish to have their marriage contract forcibly changed without their consent (often the wife of an erotic cross-dresser husband) as a controlling bully.

Basically, DARVO.

but my question still remains - if you’re going to divorce anyway why does this make any difference now that divorce is all “fast track” and no blame anyway

Because Sarah wants to divorce her husband Dave, not her wife Deirdre. Why should Sarah's decree absolute refer to Deirdre and not Dave?

And to portray the partner who does not wish to have their marriage contract forcibly changed without their consent (often the wife of an erotic cross-dresser husband) as a controlling bully.

This. We've seen this in lots of "guidance" which trans rights activists have had a hand in writing, such as the recent CPS ones.

It is also not 'withholding consent to transition' - the partner can carry on with interim documentation that works no differently to the real thing.

It is withholding consent to continue in the marriage.

This is what Labour wish to remove. The right to consent to continue in a marriage. Tbh, anyone who wishes to unilaterally change the terms of their marriage and force their non consenting partner to continue in the marriage without ability or right to escape is an abusive arse. What sane or caring person would do this to someone they wanted to stay married to? It's a puzzler.

I agree with pp: marriages should be automatically annulled when a GRC is applied for, and the non transitioning partner can then marry the 'new' person when the GRC is awarded.

I agree that automatic annulment must be considered. It gives the wife (and it is pretty much always the wife) their agency back, to make an active decision about their marriage status.

The status of children in the UK in such annulment situations would have to be considered though - I would assume that the law would protect their legitimacy and inheritance rights, and that Labour will be consulting with women from the Abrahamic religions about this. (Hollow laugh).

Or, repeal the GRA. What a dreadful mess.

Marriage gives women certain financial rights on divorce, which unmarried partners don’t receive. If the marriage is annulled, doesn’t that mean it is legally considered to have never been valid? So would annulment cancel the wives’ financial rights, as they would be considered to have never married? And wojld their children be ‘illegitimate’, which would upset some people?

Repeal the wretched misbegotten GRA would be by far the best action. That would automatically solve so many of the myriad problems it has created.

Name changed for this. Sorry it's long- but will explain why Spousal exit clause/ annulment must be retained. If the gov tries to remove the annulment option they will be in direct conflict with the UN Declaration of human rights and the major beliefs of world religions. This is an issue of competing rights. It will cause immense and lifelong pain to those who don't believe their husband's are women, and is a form of religious persecution, unheard of in the UK in modern times.

The UN Declaration of Human rights protects freedom to believe and follow your belief. Many world religions teach that marriage is between a man and woman only, ban same 'sex' marriage and do not recognise divorce- you HAVE to get an annulment or you cannot remarry in church/ chapel etc, and may be unable to take part in other religious sacraments.
Here's a link to Roman Catholic belief and teaching as an example (I have found many others):
https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/divorce-annulments-and-remarriage/

International Catholic teaching on transgenderism-
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf

So the Labour government may not personally believe in other religions, but they must respect believers' human rights to follow them. Trans gender beliefs-apparently held by Labour MPs- that a middle aged father of 3 is a woman if he gets a certificate, is just another belief, with no basis in reality, in direct conflict with other beliefs- eg the wife's ability to follow and practice her own faith. The gov cannot force believers of other religions to pretend to support ‘transition’ by the father of their children, nor consent to being in a ‘same sex in law’ marriage- as it will in many cases result in the wife facing lifelong consequences for the practice of her faith, as in the RC link. It has major lifelong consequences for the children too
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/363360/transgender-womans-daughter-shunned-by-hasidic-classmates/
and
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2022/03/12/no-exit/

The human rights protecting freedom of belief and religious practice is widely discussed in original Hansard notes.
Under international human rights laws, countries are supposed to take the least invasive option to respect everyone's human rights. So this is why the husband can still get an ‘interim GRC’ and either party can use it to end the marriage by annulment so it is fair to both, but the wifr can also exit her marriage BEFORE she is forced into a marriage that is in denial of her faith. (There is no spousal veto- it’s an exit clause for either party to use).

(IAN a RC or transwidow)

The use of annulment is interesting and problematic for me, as a close friend had her marriage annulled. It was a very traumatic affair, and I have never seen so many drained women as were in the waiting room of the Old Bailey court which was hearing the cases.

I think we need a third process. Annulment is a very specific instrument, it enacts that a marriage did not exist, either because it was invalid (consanguinity, bigamy or underage), or because it was conducted in bad faith (pregnancy, force, Existing STD, non consummated ). Spousal transition has been rather shoehorned in, because it is all very new and so the law did not have a place for it.

It seems to me though , that saying a marriage did not exist because of subsequent events is incorrect. The position of children of the marriage is quite unclear, are they now illegitimate because their parents were ‘never’ married? ( of course not, but that could be legally argued).

We need a third legal instrument, which declares that the marriage has been terminated because the identity of one of the parties has vanished and been replaced. As PP have said, the consenting spouses can remarry, possibly with a short and simple process such as re registration.

May I also just say, I'm sure that Justin Welby will likely be all over Labour on this 'progressive' move.

But Justin Welby does NOT speak on behalf of all the women of all the Abrahamic religions.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen I think you are right about creating a new type of divorce for this situation, but I'm not sure trans activists would accept it as it would be evidence of their transition.

@Thelnebriati
But it would be ‘special’ , so that might appeal.

I wouldn't like transwidows to feel coerced into re-registering a marriage to protect their children's rights (legitimacy, inheritance) though - that would have to already be a given. Choices have to be freely made.

I think this is the final nail in the coffin labour will never get my vote again

I'm done

"We need a third legal instrument, which declares that the marriage has been terminated because the identity of one of the parties has vanished and been replaced. As PP have said, the consenting spouses can remarry, possibly with a short and simple process such as re registration."

Sounds sensible to me

Lets face it, there is nothing TRAs would accept except doing whatever they want when they want it, with full permission to trample over everyone and everything in their path.

Which is what law is for. To protect fairness and equality for all.

With protection for children - no rights lost.

I married my late DH because he was male; if he had told me after the event that he had always had doubts about his gender then , had I known that when he asked me he felt that, there would have been no marriage. Personally I would rather that the marriage was annulled , so it did not exist, rather than me have to petition for divorce. Others might feel differently.

This is an important point which may or may not have come up in real life yet, but if a divorced parent dies without a Will his or her children will need to prove they are related to be able to inherit. Where the name on the death certificate doesn’t match the name on their birth certificate they would need to prove the deceased’s change of name. As a GRC is not a publicly available document how would they prove that their parent is in fact the same person named on their birth certificate?

I think that ,there are lots of unforeseen circumstances when those who make laws don't have enough forethought to think through everything that might happen. and frankly I think this often is the case. They try to resolve a situation by simple means and actually make it worse.

Thank you for understanding. And inheritance rights for children in Scotland are different from those in England (a fact often misunderstood bu posters on MN). In Scotland, children cannot be completely disinherited so TRAs arguing that 'maybe X didn't want to leave anything to his kids' doesn't wash.

Also, in many religions and in law, the concept of legitimacy does actually matter a great deal. Why else are parents with a child who subsequently legally marry advised to re-register their child under the Legitimacy Act and receive a new birth certificate?

The GRA has to be repealed.

"I think we need a third process."

I wonder if you could have a 'disappeared person' process. The guy or gal you married has (or is about to) go up in a puff of smoke. And, then reappear abracadabra style, as someone with a new and improved moniker and supposed sex.

Maybe life insurance could pay out.

Perhaps the answer is something in line with when a spouse dies?

In that case, children are still the heirs but the marriage no longer exists.

As far as I'm aware, all religions allow widows and widowers to remarry.

Given the argument is that Joe Bloggs no longer exists (given the change of all historical documents back to birth certificates), it doesn't seem that much of a stretch that it could be compared to the death of a spouse for legal purposes?