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

Not really

It is:
Current arrangement: Your spouse begins living socially as a person of the opposite sex. Two years later, your spouse gives notice that they intend to legally change their sex making your marriage same sex by applying for a GRC. There is an extra mechanism to give you an extra 6 months to do a civil version of voiding the marriage before it changes to something you never agreed to.

Proposed arrangement: Your spouse begins living socially as a person of the opposite sex. You can choose to divorce via civil law and annul (if applicable) via your religions process immediately and be done in six months. Two years later, your spouse unilaterally legally changes their sex and the most basic terms of your marriage. If you don't like it you’ve had two years to divorce him four times over (and annul via your religions procedures if applicable) by now and you can still civil divorce and religious annul (if applicable) at your leisure within six months from start to finish.

Coriolise
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

Excuse me. There are many reasons for not wanting to remain in such a marriage and homophobia is probably not one of them.
Or is everyone who chooses an opposite sex partner homophobic? You ccould work for Stonewall if that's your take.

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 not the full picture really because you can’t get an annulment if you’re still civilly married, and you can’t get married if your marriage is not also civilly valid.

I think if posters like Coriolise misunderstand discussion around the GRA so much that they are using words like ‘homophobia’, then repeal of the GRA is imperative. Bad and confusing law is divisive.

I think the Righteous contributor to this thread has been very educational

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.

This is to conflate and misunderstand marriage law and religious marriage. Muslim women without a legal marriage are not capable of being protected legally in cases of divorce, if they've had a religious ceremony only.

The legal part is important if you have to go to court. Going to a religious court isn't recognised by the state.

This also misses the point that the "spousal veto" affects everyone who is legally married. It could happen to you, it could not. But this - if enacted - would open up every part of marriage as a contract for change. That would be to the detriment of women and children.

It's a Trojan horse. Make no mistake about it.

You think it’s homophobic to not want to be married to someone of the same ‘sex’? What a ridiculous thing to say.
If you are heterosexual, why would you want to marry someone of the same sex? That doesn’t mean you hate all people of that sex. Also, you’re completely missing the point. We all have the right to follow whichever religion we choose and to live our lives according to that religion. There is a massive conflict of rights between different religious beliefs and gender identity ideology. No one should be forced to accept anyone else’s beliefs. A woman should not be forced to have her legal documentation to state that she was married to another woman and is now divorced when in fact she was married to a man.
The ultimate kick in the face is that a man who wants to be seen as a woman will do whatever he can to make everyone around him legally see him as a woman. Sh by divorcing his wife, he can wave around a divorce certificate that indicates he is a woman married to another woman - ie a lesbian, thus yet again affirming his womanhood. It’s all about being in control, which is what these men like!

That’s so clear. Thanks.

Funnily enough, none of the lesbians I know consider me homophobic for not wanting to stay in my marriage.

You think it’s homophobic to not want to be married to someone of the same ‘sex’?

No I do not.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

It would be if I had said it. I didn’t.

Typical MN tactic to take something and twist it into something else.

Why did you mention homophobia

How is it relevant?

Yes you can. The civil divorce can precede or follow the religious annulment.

You’re muddying the waters here, we are not taking about whether a religious marriage is also a valid civil marriage- we know it is not. Similarly, in many regions a civil marriage or divorce is not recognised by them until or if they approve their own religious marriage or annulment or divorce accordingly.

We are talking about a civil annulment clause that posters have wrongly stated is necessary to protect women of certain religions, Catholics being given as an example, that need an annulment over a divorce.

However what these posters did not know is that Catholicism and the other major nonCoE religions do the annulments themselves and do not recognise the civil divorce proceedings as a divorce in their religion. So no Catholic woman is going to be barred from marrying in a church if she has secured an annulment from the tribunal in the Catholic Church- they do not recognise the civil divorce proceedings she would also do as a divorce in the church.

The contention that a spousal veto is necessary to protect women of certain religions is questionable since the example of Catholics given was incorrect. It also doesn’t apply to Muslim women and I have looked up Jewish women this morning, doesn’t apply to them either.

If it were so necessary, then the most Catholic regions of the U.K. would have been up in arms about the fact that the spousal veto and civil version of annulment doesn’t exist for them as that clause is only available in England and Wales.

If anyone has any example of a religion that does require it, please post some information & evidence showing this.

Because as it stands reasons for it that have been given have fallen apart at the slightest bit of research.

I'm very clear it's not me muddying the waters. But carry on with all the sunlight, it's most welcome

Women do not need to escape marriages they no longer wish to be part of because Reasons.

Mostly that them not being able to be recognised as an equal partner in the marriage, with an equal voice and rights to an autogynephilic man is inconvenient to said man. Which is transphobic. Or something.

Fgs, are you really this invested in ensuring this happens to women and they're stripped of all protections against it? Why? Does thinking of that woman trapped and in distress have some kind of value to you? What kind of utter arse forces staying in an unwanted marriage on his wife anyway unless he's an abusive bastard?

But all this endless wittering and hairsplitting and sealawyering to spin things against women is a very good demonstration of why this needs to be removed from anyone's hands at all where they can spill their anti-woman punishment agenda all over it to show how very right on they are. Marriages need to be automatically dissolved as part of the GRC process. If the woman then chooses she can re marry her newly identitied partner. And if she doesn't, she's free.

And that will do until we get rid of the GRCs altogether by repealing the GRA which was a bloody awful idea and this is one of the many manifestations of why.

I'm also interested in those who think this should be removed:

we have the women affected right here on MN. They have made submissions in the public domain of how this affects them, the negative aspects for them, and what they want and would have saved them from in many cases very damaging and destructive times in their lives due to their partner's transition.

They're stating both the problems, and their preferred solution.

And yet people NOT in that situation and unaffected by it are insisting they know better.

Why? What agenda is this serving if these women's voices,, experiences and needs are being disregarded?

What happens in cases of detransition after the divorce/annulment? Do you have to get divorced again?

No one is advocating for women to be trapped in a marriage.

Removal of the veto clause will not trap women in a marriage- it doesn’t even exist in half the U.K. and those women escape their marriages just the same without it.

The OP is correct, with the new no fault, 26 week divorce it’s not needed for any reason at all. Or at least no one on this thread has been able to come up with a reason that can withstand the slightest bit of factual scrutiny.

They were affected before the no fault 26 week divorce path was created.
Their experiences can now be avoided.

Removal of the veto clause will not trap women in a marriage- it doesn’t even exist in half the U.K. and those women escape their marriages just the same without it.
It was got rid of in Scotland under the radar, it doesn't mean we should do the same.

They were affected before the no fault 26 week divorce path was created.
Their experiences can now be avoided.

We say this right is still needed. What other groups of women do you disregard who say this about their rights.

No. It never existed in the GRA for Scotland when it was originally enacted.
It’s always been enacted as grounds for divorce, never a civil version of annulment(voiding the marriage).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/schedule/2/paragraph/6/enacted

no one on this thread has been able to come up with a reason that can withstand the slightest bit of factual scrutiny.

Interesting to see this is going to be the tactic going forward. Thanks for the info. It's valuable for the fight back. Now I understand why Dodds said our rights are "outdated".

The reason I say this is could women temporarily identify as transmen to get out of marriages that are normally difficult to get out of for cultural/religious reasons?

You can say it all you want to, but thus far no one has a concrete reason why it is still needed. I am a woman, and I am possessed of an analytical mind and some legal expertise. Give me a reason that bears up under a bit of scrutiny as the clause being the only or fastest recourse to exit a marriage and you’ll have my support.