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

She still has over two years to get a six month process done. So the argument that it is needed so a woman can avoid being in a same sex marriage rings hollow.

Good for you as I didn’t say that, you can ignore those that have been saying it.

Will you therefore fully explain why you wrote this, and what you meant by it, please?

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.

You’re confused. A person is not eligible to even apply for a GRC unless they have lived openly and socially as the opposite sex for two years. There literally is no way a spouse could secretly start living openly and socially as the opposite sex without their wife noticing.

So the contention that this is needed to pause the issuing of a GRC because it can be done in secret and a woman can have no idea about her spouse now wanting to be a TW is not an honest reason. You cannot even be eligible to apply for a GRC if you’re keeping it a secret.

Yes it is a reason to remove it, as it is now excess to requirement. It is now red tape because the benefit it used to give, has been replaced in law by a better benefit and process.

I already wrote a long post repeating verbatim what I actually said and explaining at length the context.

I have only denied the things that I have been accused of saying that I did not say. That is not dishonesty. What is being done to me on this thread is what is dishonest and in bad faith.

I didn’t say it. Stop pretending that I did.

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.

You show a total lack of regard or empathy for the position of a woman, often with family, and many years of marriage.

Are you, or have you ever been, married? Have you ever built a life and family with someone; created a home? If you had you would realise that a 'good divorce' can take time.

Why the rush?

No it doesn’t. The two are not mutually inclusive.

I'm struggling to understand the motivation behind your position, then?

I'm confused? Your post bears no relation whatsoever to mine.

A positive decision should be made to either remain or exit the marriage before the documents are changed to reflect the new sex marker.

Yes absolutely. But when a spouse has had over two years to make this decision, why should she or he have the power to halt a GRC for their soon to be ex get yet more time? This is open to abuse. If you don’t want to be married to a transgender person you’re not going to need more than two years to make that decision.

I did already.

Red tape isn't an additional option, red tape is superfluous steps.

It has not been replaced by a better process as many people here have explained.

Nil points

That’s not saying that you are homophobic if you don’t want to be in a same sex marriage. You are deliberately conflating an issue of what it says in documents (on paper) versus de facto reality.

Are you some sort of collective and one of you can't recall what the other one said at 00.37 in the morning? Denial does not equal explanation.

Until you actually address this everyone on this thread is watching you flail around like a sort of angry dying fish.

She still has over two years to get a six month process done. So the argument that it is needed so a woman can avoid being in a same sex marriage rings hollow.

Does the wife have to give permission to open the GRA process, @Coriolise? Or can the man do it without her involvement or knowledge up to the point of having to deal with the spousal exit clause?

So all of a sudden, what's on paper ISN'T IMPORTANT.

Yup, MRA.

I disagree and no one has given any factual current reason for it to stay. It’s been reasons regarding timing which I have illustrated are bollocks, it’s been reasons regarding it might be in secret, which is also bollocks. It’s been but women in the past needed it, nice but not relevant to the current state of the law. It’s been but Catholic/Muslim women need annulments have to have it, which I have shown to be based on ignorance of the fact their own religious authorities issue annulments, not the U.K. Gov and they disregard any civil divorce as not a divorce.

That sums it up. Basically you want it to stay out of fear. Theres no logic to it.

Ooh, does anyone remember the collective from a few months ago who managed to fuck up and added the link they were all working from?

No logic from a genderist is a contradiction in terms.

You are still looking like that flapping fish.

No, I never said what is on paper isn’t important. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if you don’t want to have a same sex marriage on paper, then don’t live for two years in what is essentially a same sex marriage. Divorce your spouse at any time during the 2 yrs of living openly and socially as the opposite sex required before they can even apply for that piece of paper. You have time to divorce them four times over. I don’t think anyone needs more time than that.

Seriously.

You are lecturing abused women about how they want it to stay 'out of fear', after all they went through in reality trying to make this work?

What you mean is that no one has yet given you a reason that you personally agree with, and for some reason you feel qualified to dictate your superior view to these women of what they may have, should want, may feel, and are now shaming them in an attempt to get them to do what you say.

It is exceptionally symptomatic of the tone deaf/compassion and empathy free/ lady bountiful/master of the workhouse ethos we've all come to expect of this political lobby when talking to women and reframing their reality and trampling them down to benefit men's sexual freedoms. But it's still bloody revolting to witness in real time. Shameful.