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

Honesty has always been my preferred “tactic” in discourse.

Your emphahiss does not seem to be on treating both people equitably.....but on permitting the man to do as he desires as quickly as possible - without any regard for the other party; for any children involved; the longevity and entanglement that comes from having been married for a long time.

It takes the spouse TWO YEARS of living openly as the opposite sex before they can even apply for a GRC and get an interim one. I am happy with that and not advocating for any change to this to make it quicker.

That is FOUR TIMES the amount of time needed to do a no fault divorce. Not to mention it is over FOUR YEARS from referral to first appointment at the gender clinic if they want to medically transition. So no one is going to be sharing a home or bed with a person mid-transition, unless they choose to.

The facts are, if a man wishes to transition to TW, then he has a much longer process to go through that cannot be done in secret compared to his wife.

Youre right it’s not equitable, it’s in the spouse’s favour and that is without the veto clause, which is tips the balance even further towards the spouse. I don’t want things to be equitable, I want them to stay in favour of the spouse just not so heavily in their favour.

How much more time does a woman need to escape a marriage if FOUR TIMES the time it takes to even apply for a GRC is not enough time?

What is the concrete reason for removing it?

Review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004: consultation analysis
Published 23 November 2018
Directorate Justice Directorate
Part of Communities and third sector, Equality and rights, Law and order

“Scottish marriage”
4.1. “The Gender Recognition Panel can only issue a full GRC to a married applicant if their spouse has confirmed that they are content to stay in the marriage. The Scottish Government is aware of concerns about the requirement for the consent of a spouse in relation to an application for legal gender recognition under the 2004 Act”.[8]
4.2.” As the consultation paper notes, the requirement may give a trans person’s spouse inappropriate power to determine the trans person’s access to their legal rights. However, it can be seen by others as a reasonable balance between the rights of the trans person to seek recognition of their acquired gender and those of their spouse to decide whether they want to stay in the marriage”.

Please would someone explain why it seems here as if the reason for this part of the law is so that the non-trans spouse can decide they might want to stay in the marriage, and if they do decide to stay this would prevent the transitioning spouse from getting the GRC? That sounds more like a ‘veto’. Is this explanation I have quoted from this ‘Review’ true?

It’s not needed due to the no fault 26 week divorce law that has come into effect.

That is not a concrete reason for removing it, which is what I asked.

The two can happily co exist, giving women options.

Since living as the opposite sex is all in the person's own head - what difference does it make if it is two years or ten years? Two people, at least, are involved.. Marriages are not just abou thet two people signing a contract - but about the intimacy and involvement of a life and a home built together; about family; friends; inter-twined financial arrangements; about self concept, one's role in the community and in friendship groups and so on.

You think that changing one's records and certificates ( falsifying commonly understood reality) should be a simple and easy process? Why?

It is not all about the man who desires to'transition' whatever that means.

There it is. Lovely sunlight 😎

The issue is that in Scotland, it is grounds for divorce not annulment. So the a veto clause for annulment doesn’t exist for Scotland. The argument one is needed for annulment due to Catholicism is alsk faulty and the reason that annulment in Catholic is issued by their own religious authority. They do not recognise a civil annulment.

Secondly, it’s not needed as we now have no fault divorce. We do not need to keep this as a ground for divorce or annulment for women to escape the marriage.

Thirdly, women have at least two years forewarning of the trans person going for a GRC. That is four times the amount of time needed to a get a no fault divorce. Especially since you can also get the divorce done and then do the financial settlement and child residence/support/contact afterwards.

It’s not in their own head. Read the application for a GRC. They have to openly and socially live as the opposite sex which includes changing their name, changing their dress, changing from Mr to Miss etc.

Your emphahiss seems almost entirely to be on speed and urgency.

Just because a woman can, in theory, get a 26 week divorce does not mean she might not require/prefer longer. A contract cannot be unilaterally voided.

Yeah im not going yo pay any attention to someone who described women who
dont Want to stay in a relationship with a TW as “homophobic”

I can do all that but my head isn't insisting I am man though?

Of course it's all in the head, you are contradicting the actual case law behind the GRA which referred to this as brain sex.

You have to be careful with genderism. The answers are always situational and are rarely cross checked for contradictions.

@Coriolise can you say why you used the term homophobic?

And then pretended that they hadn't.

It strikes me that for many men the act of transitioning is driven by an obsessive urgency. This though does not mean that the spouse must feel similar urgency to act. It is the 'transitioner' who is imposing the change of condition or demand for change - they cannot also control how the partner responds.

None of the above changes your sex, anyway. It is just superficial surface stuff. You cannot live as the 'opposite sex 'in any other way than in the imagination. If you've been doing all of the above secretly for years - why not for a few more?

It's not about urgency, it's about the sequence of legal events as people have explained.

You know nothing about Jewish women, Coriolise. You seem fixated on speed of process. There’s nothing about the importance of a wife’s dignity, agency, privacy and psychological and spiritual well-being.

There are, in addition, many different branches of Judaism. Jewish communities and synagogues are not a monolith called ‘Jewish’. Reformed and Chassidic is just one very obvious example of very different practice and belief under Judaism. Have the senior rabbis consulted women about these matters? The Labour Party certainly hasn’t.

I now now fully support repeal of the GRA as a result of this thread. I’m tired of being ‘done to’ and forced into ‘acceptance’ of other people’s men’s convenience.

If you want to talk about speed @Coriolise, the proposals would change that too.

It won't take nearly as long to get one letter from one doctor for a transition. Labour, even with their latest proposals want to make transition 'easier' and faster.

It is already a lot for a wife to get her head around. It takes time. Saying 'it's now or never. I'm transitioning, so divorce me immediately, or it's happening whatever you say' is not reasonable.

I am not sure the GRA even considered detransition. Correct me if I'm wrong. It must be absolutely impossible. What would the process be to return to your original birth certificate? A doctor saying 'yep. He's a man.'?

As for the homophobia comment. A neighbour of mine left her lesbian partner when she transitioned because she didn't want to be forced to be straight. Sexuality is an important part of a person's sense is self and identity (you know - the things that we are constantly told trump all other facts and opinions). So that was bollocks.

Calling it a spousal veto isn't helpful, but it's quite right that no one should be forced to be in a marriage with someone who has revealed themselves to be not really who they had previously presented themselves to be. Relying solely on the "no fault" divorce laws is insufficient while there are religions that hold that instigating a divorce is a sin, and whether or not you agree with that, people have a right to believe it. People also have a right to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman - they shouldn't have the right to stop two men or two women marrying each other, but they have absolute rights to decide which unions they personally are happy to be part of.

So, if a woman marries a person who at the time of marriage presents as a man, and who later decides to legally become a woman, it is exactly correct that their spouse should have a say in the order in which things happen. It isn't a veto, it's just a space to allow that woman to not be in a marriage with a transitioned woman if that isn't what she wants, and she should be able to withold her consent without being forced to be the active instigator of the divorce.

So, it's fine to have a situation where the original wife in such a marriage is offered the opportunity to consent to her change of status from a woman in a heterosexual marriage to being a woman who is married to someone who is legally and socially considered to be another woman. If that is incompatible with her beliefs or for any other reason not what she wants, then the person who instigated all this needs to be obliged to deal with initiating and completing a process of divorce or annulment before the transition proceeds, without requiring her to be the initiator of the divorce.

Yes come on @Coriolise you used the term, look back at your posts and you will see it and as you are all for honesty then do furnish us with an explanation instead of dishonestly denying it.

The reason the TRAs want to get rid of self ID, other than male entitlement is because it stands in the way of self ID.

It's interesting that the tactic has now changed from the previous, which was that it allows us evil trans widows to coercively control our poor husbands (no evidence ever provided) to the new tactic "you don't need it any more now you have no fault divorce, it's outdated".

Sorry that should read that the reason the TRAs want to get rid of the spousal exit clause is because it stands in the way of self ID.