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

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".

A bit like how, in the GRR, it was "just admin" but once Sex Matters got their petition going, it was, well...not "just admin" 🤔

As you say, dear @TinselAngel, the new tactics are out on display on the thread, which is immensely valuable albeit frustrating to endure.

I shall be writing to my Labour MP once again.

For the same reason that common law spouses are not recognised in law the exit clause should remain. A positive decision should be made to either remain or exit the marriage before the documents are changed to reflect the new sex marker.

Please remember it is the civil documents that people will use in their everyday lives and that future genealogists will look back at for information on our lives. Personally I would not want it in the official record that I was in a same sex marriage if I wasn’t because it doesn’t reflect the facts.

The supporters of this political movement positively line up to tell women 'I know better than you what you should have, want, feel and do, in things that don't personally impact me at all, and your voice and actual experience is irrelevant and you should bow to my superior judgement'.

Reframe your trauma traumatised women (and get undressed with men, who don't need to reframe or do anything.

Learn to cope with straight sex, homosexual women (because homosexuality became bad when it involved saying no to men and limiting their right to use women)

and now: no, you don't need to escape your marriage (and if you were a good person you wouldn't want to) so your punishment is to try and use the divorce process and hope it works.

There's something very, very wrong with a woman who tells someone who has lived through this situation, 'I know better than you about this situation'. Very wrong.

Flip it around. Dissolve the marriage as part of issuing the GRC. Make it an active act of consent and will to remarry. Make it automatic freedom for the woman involved unless she actively acts to re marry her new identitied partner in a gay marriage .

Why is that not a good idea?

I agree with your take generally but I struggle with the idea it could even be a gay marriage

The marriage should end but they are still the same sex to me even though they’re jumping through bizarre legal allowances

I have looked up Jewish women this morning

I'm still enjoying this particular gem from Coriolise.

Who can counter that level of expertise?

I agree, Sunny, but for the sake of one coherent conversation on that one theme am willing to indulge that bit of fiction temporarily.

I'm exclusively same sex attracted; believe me that I do not agree that a male person at any point is a lesbian.

Is this all what Ian Anderson was talking about with his conversation waffle on Sky last week?

It's as if they have rounded up a few volunteers to get over here and "conversation" at us while Labour roll out their latest batch of fudge.

Great to see the quality of conversationalist they have left at their disposal.

I agree with your take generally but I struggle with the idea it could even be a gay marriage
Legally it would be although biologically it isn't.

One of the main issues for heterosexual trans widows is the expectation that you have to buy into the idea that you have become a lesbian when you haven't.

Everybody else's own identity is paramount but ours is supposed to depend on somebody else.

Everybody else's own identity is paramount but ours is supposed to depend on somebody else.

And according to @Coriolise you are homophobic if you don't TinselAngel, if ever proof were needed that this is a Male Rights at all costs agenda there it is. Women - shut up, roll over and do as you are told, you are unworthy of any other expectation.

I couldn’t bear the injustice of this. Just thinking about others framing it that way would make me very blunt on why not.

Whereas I'd think it would be pretty homophobic if I'd carried on being married to a man (who said he was a woman) but declared myself a lesbian, despite not being attracted to women.

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.

This was what Coriolise wrote at 00.37 today.

'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.'
@Coriolise , the fact that I am heterosexual and would not enter into a relationship with a woman does NOT make me homophobic. It just means that I do not find women sexually attractive. Neither do I find men who wish to be women sexually attractive. Those are my preferences, there will be other women who feel the same, not one of them will be homophobic.
Why should i have to stay married to anyone, for any reason if I was unhappy?

It's akin to Nancy Kelly calling lesbians "sexual racists".

For not doing men.

This is as you say Tinsel: another situation in which women are expected to wholly and enthusiastically predicate reality, their feelings, their sexuality and access to their body even, entirely around supporting what a male person says is going on between their ears.

The inability to see women as actually human is astounding.

It's akin to Nancy Kelly calling lesbians "sexual racists".

Notably @Coriolise has scarpered since their dishonesty regarding labelling women homophobic for not wanting their marriage to be revamped as a same sex union has been pointed out.

It's just a piece of paper - no it fucking isn't it is a legally binding contract that involves two people agreeing to the terms of that contract and both parties have rights. It is extremely offensive of Coriolise to tar women in marriages where their male partner has changed the parameters of that contract by deciding they are now a woman as homophobic, but what else to expect from a misogynist selling a Men's Right's Agenda.

Even no fault divorce takes ages

And why shouldn't women want financial arrangements finalised before agreeing to end a marriage contract, Coriolise? Yes financial arrangements can be done afterwards, but again that's all about speed of dissolution for the benefit of an exiting partner, and it's not always in the best interest of wives and children of the marriage in some religions and some circumstances.

Always such difficulty coping with the reality of what they are doing to women. The desire is usually to do it AND identify as being a good and righteous person at the same time.

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?

This. Not interested in what I reckons from unaffected people, I'll listen to @TinselAngel and other trans widows.

Apologies meant to italicise @Froodwithatowel quote.

I have a job, that’s where I “scarpered” to.

I didn’t say anyone was homophobic for not wanting to stay in a same sex marriage, what is dishonest is the constant pretence that I did say that. Typical MN tactic really, can’t discuss anything with logic or facts so you fabricate an ad hominem attack.

I see you.