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

On face of it that seems a good idea- clear , concise - contract has changed= contract nulled

But I’ve just been looking into this as I didn’t know what the process is for annulment and wondered if it was easier or more difficult than a divorce

It looks pretty identical in process to divorce . Even with interim order and final orders (old decree nisi and absolute). Also uses same forms for child custody and financial agreements. Only process thing that’s different is no waiting times- which does make a big difference if both parties are amicable and don’t drag heals on financial arrangements or doing financial declarations.

it costs about same as well. And would need same level of input from solicitors

so, you couldn’t have an automatic annulment- stuff still needs to be agreed about kids and finances and that’s often what slows up divorces anyway. The the actual of annulment petition looks a little less automated than divorce so maybe takes longer currently - but that isn’t a complex process any more than the actual petition for divorce. That’s simple enough these days to do on line in less than 1 hour. It’s always the other stuff as the fall out about finances, kids, homes that takes the time

so, you can’t have auto annulment- the financial agreements and custody need to be “sealed” by the court before the final order just like divorce.

If auto annulment happened you’d be trying to get a partner who you’re not married to, to come to table and agree finances and have no leveredge over them doing that quickly or at all 🤷🏼‍♀️. I think it’ll create more issues

this way , as it stands based on what I now understand, they’d have to sort the financial arrangements and custody out before the annulment and before they could get full GRC. - which could influence them to act quickly around these arrangement

I'd have thought the problem with an auto annulment is the same as with a "spousal veto": you're not agreeing to a change in terms of the contract. You may well not want an annulment. You might be fine with it - that's the thing that lawyers would need to consider. What happens when the terms of the deal change, and what is reasonable for either party in those circumstances? Being forced to stay and being forced into an annulment are likely both unreasonable. And unreasonable positions for the state to take, in respect of your private life.

Had a quick look at legitimacy. Catholic canon law says they’d still be legitimate. As does CoE and the State . A quick read on Muslim annulment was less than clear. Perhaps someone can explain

Anything other than repealing the GRA in its entirety and removing the "gender reassignment" category from the EA is insufficient, in my opinion. Trans ideology needs to be fully eradicated from our laws.

But how do you prove it without the paperwork, the person listed on the children’s birth certificate as their mother or father no longer exists, their birth certificate has been altered retrospectively, any marriage or divorce certificates have been altered and the document that ties them to their old identity is not publicly available. To all intents and purposes the person named on the children’s birth certificate as their parent never existed.

My last post was in response to 123ZYX

I'm just spitballing here, but a much much simpler solution to all the above mentioned problems, just get rid of the GRA.

Which is why I said that lawmakers never think it through. In trying to resolve an issue they often create about 20 different ones and then have to rectify those, and so on......

Yep. The case since someone put into law humans could change sex

Depressingly, Hansard shows that a lot of things were speculated about as risks (all of which have come to pass, plus much worse stuff they didn't manage to dream of) but they all thought everyone would be nice, play fair, be good chaps and it would all work out.

The purpose of law is to protect the law abiding from the law breakers. If they had conscience, care for others and respect for boundaries, they wouldn't need the law in their way.

OP, I started to try to answer your query about religions and it's just impossible. There are many denominations within Christianity, that exist within the UK. There are many branches of Islam and Judaism that exist within the UK. Each branch has its own religious beliefs and teachings around relationships and marriage. All adherents are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and under the Human Rights Act.

This thread has convinced me that the GRA is bad law in terms of protecting women, children and their rights to private and family life, property, dignity and humanity. That the GRA was a cop-out designed to avoid same-sex civil unions (that would have permitted legal inheritance etc). Shameful, but fixable via repeal of the GRA, now full equal rights are here in law.

And I do hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not try to enforce Welby's Trendy Hegemony over ALL women and children in the UK on 'an ecumenical matter'.

It is a problem because a marriage is a legal contract and the precedent for allowing one party to unilaterally vary the terms of a contract without the other party’s consent, is very serious.

why is this type of contract less important than any other?

That makes sense Hermione. I said 'I take you to be my husband', I never said anything about wife. That's the contract that was entered into.

This links in with so many other things, where someone who is trans is expected to be exempted from normal laws, regulations and standards. It's a very dangerous precedent to permit any group, it leads to a society in which some have a higher privileged standard of rights and entitlements not granted to others, and about five minutes study of history will show this never ends in sunshine and rainbows. It is a really stupid idea.

Hansard shows that a lot of things were speculated about as risks… but they all thought everyone would be nice, play fair, be good chaps and it would all work out the only risk they cared enough to prevent happening by law was the one risk which only affected males, the primogeniture rule.

Fixed it for you.

...section 20 does essentially say only males can commit rape. So there are other parts of the GRA which accept realisation of risk. But totally get your point:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

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.

In this case it is treated as a voidable, rather than a void marriage. So it is not as if it never existed. Hence children remain legitimate and financial remedies are the same as for divorce.

It's to do with the order in which things happen.

Current arrangement: your spouse gives notice that they intend to change the most basic terms of your marriage. Here is a mechanism to leave your marriage before it changes to something you never agreed to.

Proposed arrangement: your spouse has unilaterally changed the most basic terms of your marriage. If you don't like it you can divorce him but not before he has changed the most basic terms of your marriage.

The current arrangement respects women. The proposed arrangement does not.

Exactly. For as long as this law remains, the marriage exit clause (annulment) needs to remain, for the spouse's sake. But still better if we could get the nonsensical, reality-denying GRA repealed altogether.

Technically, the NHS wait lists mean that a transitioner is prevented from transitioning for far longer than 26 weeks (6 months).

It is currently almost a 5 year wait from referral to first appointment

We are currently offering first appointment to people who were referred in: July 2018 - https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/ as of Feb 2023 latest update.

The .gov webpage says you have to live as opposite gender for 2yrs before you are even eligible to apply for a GRC to legally change your sex.

So any spouse would have that 26 weeks times 4 to get a no fault divorce done if their homophobia meant they couldn’t stand to have been in a same sex marriage on paper.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/who-can-apply

Ereshkigalangcleg · Yesterday 13:47
I can't copy and paste text for some reason but read section 2 of Trans Widows' Voices written submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee

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

It allows an annulment. This is needed by some women who cannot divorce for religious reasons.

Thank you for posting that.

The provision provides the option of annulment for women who are not able to divorce for religious or cultural reasons. It is essential that this is retained, to avoid these women being trapped in potentially abusive marriages or being ostracised by their communities or prevented from remarrying, if they divorce.

Annulment is not the same as divorce. In the Catholic Church if you divorce you may not remarry and if you do remarry it cannot be a church/religious wedding.

An annulment on the other hand makes it as though the marriage never happened.

I am not sure in which other religions this would also officially matter, but it would certainly make a lot of difference to anyone who believes in marriage as an unbreakable, religious rite.

Annulment is right. The woman promised to take ‘this man’ as her husband. If he was not/is not a man then there was no promise.

The U.K. Gov annulment process is really only for CoE, which doesn’t actually require annulment for anyone to remarry/not be ostracised.

If you are Catholic, the Gov.uk annulment process does not apply, you actually apply for annulment from the Catholic Church via a tribunal.
https://www.rcdea.org.uk/marriage-tribunal/guide-to-marriage-nullity/

It’s the same for other religions with similar requirements, the respective religious authority issues the annulment and they don’t give two shiny shits what U.K. Government document is issued because that’s civil law.

That’s why in Scotland and N. Ireland, our most Catholic regions, the spousal veto with path to a UK Government annulment does not exist in the GRA. It goes straight to divorce because annulment comes from the religious authority, not from the CofE state.

Coriolise · Today 00:37

WorkingItOutAsIGo · Yesterday 13:50

Because within that 26 weeks one partner can legally change sex and force the other partner to be in a homosexual marriage!

The .gov webpage says you have to live as opposite gender for 2yrs before you are even eligible to apply for a GRC to legally change your sex.

So any spouse would have that 26 weeks times 4 to get a no fault divorce done if their homophobia meant they couldn’t stand to have been in a same sex marriage on paper

Don’t you dare accuse someone of homophobia who is upset at finding themselves in this position. How dare you. How insensitive can you be? This is an abusive comment.

How do you think that two years is spent with the new identity gradually unfolding and creeping in, often secretly at first. Then often children are involved too; and maybe hope from false promises.

And this new version of a spouse isn’t even a homosexual.

It allows an annulment. This is needed by some women who cannot divorce for religious reasons.

Moving onto Muslim women. An annulment in Islam is faskh and can only be issued by a qaadi or ruling in a sharia court. As with the Catholics, these religious courts don’t care what civil proceedings say as marriage is a religious matter. We do have sharia courts in the U.K. (as we have Catholic tribunals) and they issue any annulments that are needed.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/133859/the-difference-between-khul-talaaq-and-faskh-ways-of-ending-a-marriage

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

So it seems, this clause is not needed to protect Catholic or Muslim women who need an annulment for religious reasons because these religions do the annulments themselves.