Temp GRC - Divorce.

Tags : None
  • For married couples, transitioning can be problematic to say the least.  

     

    Assuming one has completed all the requirements in line with the gender recognition act, applies to the genderr recognition board for their change of gender certificate.

    A temporary certificate will be issued, a birth certificate will not be changed until a full gender recognition certificate is issued, it is against the law for same sex partners to be married, marriage in this instance is not a civil partnership.

     

    Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, has requested comment on the spousal veto in current marriage legislation that prevents the issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate to a person who would otherwise be entitled to receive one.

     

    Contrary to the governments assertion that there is no spousal veto in current legislation, the marriage same sex couples  act 2013 permits the spouse to prevent the award of a GRA (gender Recognition Certificate) by refusal to sign the consent form for (statutory decleration consent for mutual annulment)
     
    In cases where the couple have seperated and lost contact, obtaining the agreement would be virtually impossible.
    Lets take this further and ponder on cases where the marriage has broken up because of a partner taking transitioning to being full time, complete SRS, whatever, and the spose has refused to accept it, has malicious intent and is spiteful and refuses to sign said mutual consent to annulment.
     
    In addition, the matrimonal clauses act 1973. as ammended by the actual Gender Recognition Act, 2004 passed into law in 2005, enables the spouse to void the marriage if the partner was in posession of a gender Recognition certificate prior to the marriage.
     
    Both pieces of the legislation in my opinion would appear to breach Article 8 of the human rights Act 1998 and should be classed as discrimination under the equality act 2010.
     
    So in my considered opinion the governments arguments in favour of retaining the spouses power of veto is factualy unsound and illegal
    .
     
    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 20, 2015 3:12 PM GMT
      March 18, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    0
  • When spousal consent is not forthcoming, the IGRC can be used to initiate annulment. However, if divorce proceedings have already been commenced, the annulment route is curtailed. Thus a spouse trying to put pressure on the trans person to de-transition or one who is vindictive, there is the possibiity of a pre-emptive initiation of a divorce that can be dragged out for many years, denying access to children and causing costs that the trans person can seldom afford and indeed result in the forcing of an unfair financial settlement. A vindictive spouse thus has an extended veto on her partner’s access to Article 8 rights by blocking the issue of a GRC. Government has presented such spouses with a new weapon to attack their trans partner.

     

    the original GRA was unfair to spouses as they were not informed of a GRC application. Government has now swung too far in the other direction by putting the spouse in a position of power over the trans person and can control their access to Human Rights. Government has interfered with the power balance within relationships. The trade off between the trans person accessing Human Rights soonest by award of a GRC in a marriage and the lost benefit to the spouse as a consequence has yet to be articulated. There is no public detriment to spousal veto being removed.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 19, 2015 3:07 PM GMT
      March 18, 2015 11:09 PM GMT
    0
  • Hi Crissie.

    This is a very interesting and kind of scary piece of work that is very well written and researched. To me it is saying you can't do this but then you can but we have changed our minds and now you can't again. If it is in fact illegal and I do not doubt you one tiny bit can you or no one else challenge it?. Go on make history .

     

    Thank you xxxx

      March 19, 2015 2:06 PM GMT
    0
  • The whole thing is hugely unfair as even couple's wising to remain together have to, effectively, get a divorce. Yes, they can then have a civil partnership but for some, that isn't good enough. It isn't the same and how did the government obtain the power to separate a couple against their wishes? That is surely a breach of European human rights.

     

    On the plus side, the GRC is not as relevant as a lot of institutions belive it is, so it is not necessary to obtain. You can live without it easily but to some, it is of the utmost importance to change their birth certificate. 

     

    It's tricky throughout Europe though. I've had friends who are unmarried and several years post op who still cannot obtaiin their countries GRC. It's absolutely crazy. 

    Every woman is beautiful, some show it with their faces, others show it with their hearts.
      March 19, 2015 3:10 PM GMT
    0
  • Yes, as at least one of my friends knows to their cost, both financial and emotional, a married couple had to get a divorce and then enter into a civil partnership if one was to transition and they both wished to remain together "in the eyes of the law".

    But now same-sex couples can legally marry, will this do away with the need for divorce/civil partenrship? Or must they still divorce and re-marry to show one party's change of gender? As Mr Bumble observed, the law really is an ass!

    Incidentally my band played at my cousin's wedding last weekend, our first lesbian wedding, cool!

    Not that we're a curious family or anything...

    xx

      March 19, 2015 5:35 PM GMT
    0
  • It is also a point it could be considered placing the onus on the spouse, that it is a violation of her human rights as well, forcing her to renage on promises she made, to have and to hold until death do they part, as in if she is a devout and religous person.

     

    It is a ludicrous situation. a temporary GRC states that for the set period the person is to be regarded as the opposite gender to their birth gender so in theory as soon as that is issued, the government is sponsoring an illegal marriage.Under UK law, Same sex marriage is not the same as marriage, which is defined in law as that institution of a union between man and a woman.   A same sex marriage is basically a civil partnership, with a ceremony and registration of the same conducted in a church, chapel, mosque,    The actual bill that was passed has more opt out conditions than the Magna carta, all based on religous objection. (not in my church you don't) that includes objections from parishoners.

     

    To Nikki, two people of the same sex cannot reamain in a tradition lawful marriage, if one goes on to have their natal birth gender registration altered.

     

    And to Lucy yes, before a revised birth certificate is issued, one must have the marriage annuled.   Which then entitles

    and alters a persons pension rights etc. one must also be ''single'' to enter into a civil partnership.

     

    The law is not an ass, it is the donkeys that interpret the law and propose these highly suspect bills put forward to the house of lords.

     

    It still comes back to if there is a vindictive spouse, it can cause so much distress and upset to the person who has made the transition, take it further, someone has had GRS, will this stupid government insist that everything be reversed.

     

    I can see this ending up in the European courts and being reversed. I can see the ruling that as soon as a GRC is issued, a marriage will automatically be annulled. there will be no need for an interim/temporary GRC.

     

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 19, 2015 8:53 PM GMT
      March 19, 2015 7:00 PM GMT
    0
  • If we look at it logically, if the couple are still together, when the time comes to applying for a GRC, there is already a form of acceptance on the spouses part, RLE, 2 years, therapy, attending a gender clinic, cross hormone treatment, perhaps even surgery. so it's a bit late at the last minute to allow the spouse power of veto.   If they have already seperated, there is also no reason to deny an automatic right to a full GRC.    To give another person the right to determine anothers destiny in this way is contrary to their human rights. as defined in section 8 of the EHRC. 

     

    It seems things have gone full circle form the time of April Ashleys anullment,

     

    The case of Corbett v Corbett (February 1970) is the infamous legal decision used by some to deny basic rights for transsexuals in the United Kingdom for more than 30 years. It began as a divorce case at a time when the UK didn't regognise mutual consent as reason enough to dissolve a marriage, so Arthur Corbett sought a method of dissolving his marriage to the model April Ashley without the issue of inheritance rights.

    His case was brought under the premise that, as Ms Ashley was born male (and should therefore be treated as male in perpetuity despite her change of sex) the marriage was illegal. At the time, medical opinion on transsexuality was divided and no consensus on whether Ms Ashley should be legally seen as male or female could be reached.

    As a consequence, the judge (Lord Justice Ormrod, who was himself a physician) created a medical 'test' and definition to determine the legal status of April Ashley and, by extension, all transsexual people. The result of this test (which defined Ms Ashley, a successful model, as a man) was then taken up and used to define the sex of transsexual people for many purposes until the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (which ultimately defined the sex of transsexual people as whatever is on their birth certificate, until such point as a Gender Recognition Certificate corrects the birth certificate - hence for those who do not possess such a certificate, nothing has changed since 1970).

    As a result of Justice Ormrod's decision, the unofficial correcting of birth certificates for transsexual and intersex people ceased.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 19, 2015 8:52 PM GMT
      March 19, 2015 7:36 PM GMT
    0
  • Corbet vs Corbet! I read that years ago and Lord Justice Ormrod a physician?. I think you are right Crissie things have come full circle. It really is very simple if they all just sat down and had a very good well informed chat about about this I am sure bigots aside this could all be worked out in a day. Saying that though it makes life to simple for some people.

      March 19, 2015 8:52 PM GMT
    0
  • I know this sounds to easy but here is how it could/should be done. This does not affect me because I never married and never will.

    I know some do get married and then let it out after the event and thats causes the problems , best not do that but if it is to late then this would be logical.

    If the couple wish to stay together get the GRC stating gender. As we have to go to the births marriage and deaths office to change birth certificates. How hard would it be to make a new law saying you wish to change the name on a marriage certificate?. It is the same process but on a different certificate. I know that is far to simple but simple to me is far better than all of the goings on people have to go through now. Vote for me in May and I will sort itSmile.

      March 19, 2015 10:45 PM GMT
    0
  • I see no reason why, in this day and age, a same sex marriage should be legally any different from a marriage between a man and a woman. I know it is, but there really is no logical reason as why this is the case. Therefore, it should be as simple as altering the sex on a birth and marriage certificate just like we are able to change our names without getting divorced! 

     

    I am not into studying law unless, but no one could convince me that two people who wish to remain together, must legally divorce just to make an entry on a birth certificate. Like many laws, it needs reviewing and renewing to suit the people of the 21st century, not the those from the 19th century. 

     

    Every woman is beautiful, some show it with their faces, others show it with their hearts.
      March 20, 2015 2:10 PM GMT
    0
  • Quite so Nikki, a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper signifying a legal contract. Changing name and/or gender presentation doesn't and shouldn't change that contract. Divorce is up to the individuals, and shouldn't be forced upon them by churches or governments.

    xx 

      March 20, 2015 2:47 PM GMT
    0
  • Nikki. in this country and probably in most eauropean countires, its archaic, entrenched in religion.   The GRA would never have got through parliament in fact it was orginally rejected until the the requirement  by the house of lords absolving the church of any form of discrimination based on religous grounds, which included the marriage act was not interfered with.

     

    Whilst not being religous myself, one must respect others rights to their beliefs, and we should not impose our wants and wishes on those people the same as they should not impose their wishes on us.

     

    If both partners are so inclined, by mutual agreement they can have the marriage annuled, saves a lot of money,

    swearing an afidavit before a commisioner of oaths, register it in court, along with a copy of the IGRC, think the total cost is about £500-£600 UK. then they can go for a civil partnership or have a same sex marriage conducted in church, if they can find a church that will do it. If they are religous then they can renew their vows.

     

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
      March 20, 2015 2:56 PM GMT
    0
  • Whilst I would like to agree with Lucy's last post, the contract/marriage certificate is one between a man and a woman,

    and in theory any deviation from any contract renders the contract validity debateable, which brings me back to, once a person has a GRC even one that is termed intermediate, the original contract becomes null and void. so an anullment should be automatic.

     

    Personally this would be an ideal solution, people then go onto reafirm their commitment to each other after such drastic changes, sorta romantic, reminding themselves why they got married in the fist place.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 20, 2015 3:13 PM GMT
      March 20, 2015 3:05 PM GMT
    0
  • I do see your point Cristine. I guess what I'm hinting at is that some same-sex couples would like the same rights and same terminology as mixed couples.

    They are being stymied because The Church claims that God has decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman. So God doesn't believe in human rights then...

    xx

    This post was edited by Lucy Diamond at March 22, 2015 7:04 PM GMT
      March 20, 2015 3:13 PM GMT
    0
  • Everyday we hear of peoples basic human rights being ignored through religous beliefs.   In most cases resulting in their deaths..   I still believe the UK has the most comprehensive cover for transgendered peoples right in the world.

     

    Incidentally the spouse veto was not added to Scotish law. and remains in its original form. anullment on issue of the GRC

    with a registration fee for the dismissal of the marriage.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
      March 20, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    0
  • I fully agree with you Crissie. We here in the UK do have the most comprehensive cover in the world. When I read stories from other countries about stupid things like the basic human right to use the ladies room or changing rooms in stores ect we should count ourselves very lucky. We have a million miles to go as yet but at least we stand out above the rest of the world.

      March 22, 2015 5:21 PM GMT
    0
  • Further thoughts.

     

    A person during RLE (real life experience) to comply with the requirements of the Gender recognition Act 2004 will have:-

     

    1.  Changed their registeration and gender details with the NHS (nation health service) being given a new medical

          card they will pay for prescription and whatever services are not provided free in their new name and gender.

     

    2,   They will have registered the change with the DWP (department of work and pensions) recieved a new NI (national

           insurance number) they will pay to that government department NI contributions and any tax due, in their new

           name and gender.

     

    3.    If they are liable for  council tax they will be charged and pay that to their local government authority.

     

    4.   They will pay for services, Gas, electric water, and telephone bills in their new name and VAT a tax paid via a third   

           party to the government.

     

     

    5.   A new passport and driving licence both issued by government departments.

     

    6.    If they own a car they will be responsible for payment of the road tax and be required to register said vehicle in  

            their new name and gender.

     

    ipso facto the government has already accepted the change of name and gender, therefore in my opinion as soon as application is made for official recognition, a GRC should automatically be issued  linked to automatic annulment of the marriage.

     

     

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
      March 23, 2015 1:48 PM GMT
    0
  • It still comes down to a marriage being annulled though, which is fundamentilly wrong when the couple involved don't have any inclination to undertake this. They are being forced to legally separate simply to make a administrative addendum to a certificate. It's wrong. 

    Every woman is beautiful, some show it with their faces, others show it with their hearts.
      March 23, 2015 4:13 PM GMT
    0
  • While being sympathetic, Nikki, we cant have it both ways, if a person does'nt apply for a GRC, the couple can remain married but in theory the original marriage certificate contract is broken, because all other documents have been changed, its rather a silly situation that one has to apply for a final GRC. to establish something that has allready been established, it changes a birth certificate, so there is now a new record of gender at the national registery of births deaths and marriages.   As far as I am aware, if a death certificate is later applied for, and no change had been made, the persons death would have to be that of male, to correspond with the original birth certificate.

     

    Perhaps on applying for a GRC if there was a mutual acceptance form of continuance of marriage, and take away the veto, if the acceptance form was not submitted automatic annullment would take place, but the problem with that if the GRC is granted it automatically cancels the orignial marriage contract, as per man woman marriage act, so the only logical thing I could envisage is with the continuance form, there would have to be an automatic change of status to alter the records and make it a same sex marriage in accordance with the marriage act 2013

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
      March 23, 2015 4:40 PM GMT
    0
  • That's a very sensible and well thought out post, Cristine.

    It is indeed all a bit silly when really it's just about red tape and contracts which are supposed to signify 2 individual's commitment to each other.

    An automatic change of status from marriage to civil partnership would be preferable to being forced to officially separate and then "remarry".

    Ideally, and I know it's not realistic, I'd like to see marriage redefined as a contract between two humans, not necessarily of different sex or gender. But The Church will probably never go for that. I blame The Church...

    xx

      March 23, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    0
  • I read the latest of this from work but could not multi task on what I was doing at the time. My first thoughts were Crissie you really have thought about this "A lot" Did it give you a headache?. As Lucy says it is well thought through. Not only is it well thought through it makes perfect sense. I like what Lucy says about marriage being a contract between two humans regardless of gender and yes blame the ChurchSmile for everything lol. 

     

    This is all just pieces of paper conflicting with each other and there is no need for it. There is no logical reason for making things so hard other than to make peoples lives hard. I think it is time someone banged a few heads together and I nominate CrissieSmile.

     

    xx

      March 23, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    0
  • Lucy the amendment to the civil partnership act 2004 as revised    to Marriage (same sex couples) act 2013

     

    (1)Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.

    (2)The marriage of a same sex couple may only be solemnized in accordance with—

    (a)Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949,

    (b)Part 5 of the Marriage Act 1949,

    (c)the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, or

    (d)an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6.

    (3)No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman.

    (4)Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples.

     

    So basically one has to find a sympathetic pastor or vicar,  don't hold your breath especially if your catholic, muslim or baptist or  other denominations.

     

    Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc

    (1)A person may not be compelled by any means (including by the enforcement of a contract or a statutory or other legal requirement) to—

    (a)undertake an opt-in activity, or

    (b)refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity.

    (2)A person may not be compelled by any means (including by the enforcement of a contract or a statutory or other legal requirement)—

    (a)to conduct a relevant marriage,

    (b)to be present at, carry out, or otherwise participate in, a relevant marriage, or

    (c)to consent to a relevant marriage being conducted,

     

     

    But the first paragraph does  now include all other rights securities, inhereritance  associated to 'normal marriage' per se.

     

     

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at March 23, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
      March 23, 2015 9:25 PM GMT
    0
  • Just so I understand correctly, are you saying that marriage of same sex couples is now fully recognised by law in exactly the same way as opposite sex couples?

    I'm asking purely about the legal status of married same sex couples, regardless of church.

      March 23, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    0
  • Right, good. So to reiterate my initial point, if a couple is legally married and one then changes name and gender, there really is no reason in law for them not to remain married. Furthermore, it would be ludicrous to continue to force couples to divorce in order to obtain a GRC, and then allow them to remarry - thus giving them the same legally married status that they already had!

    Clearly, that requirement is now obsolete, an amended marriage certificate should be all that is required. We can already get an amended birth certificate, so this ought to be academic.

     

    Obviously the church is another matter, as Cristine points out. The Church of England have "opted out" of this particular change of law and are not required to perform wedding ceremonies between same sex couples. They would have to "agree amongst themselves" if this were ever to change. Unlikely.

    But the Church of England are no longer allowed to restrict individuals' rights to equality as defined by law. They can only choose to whom they disallow access to their mumbo-jumbo wedding service. How does any religious TG person consolidate this discrepancy between their supposed god's law with their basic human, and now legal right, I wonder.

    As you may have guessed I'm not really bothered about the church. Religion by its very nature does not move on. Laws decreed by churches 2000 years ago are often simply not appropriate in, shall we say, a more civilised society. Constantly dwindling congregations show that the church will inevitably be left behind. In this country at least; those societies that impose religion by law are another matter. Such non-segregation between church and state spells disaster for the progress of civilisation.

     

    Did I digress? Sorry. Despite what the church think, it's the law that really matters in this country, and allowing TG's to be legally recognised in their proper gender, and now allowing same sex couples equality with traditional married couples is great progress for humanity. Two changes in law that I feel lucky to have witnessed in my lifetime.

    Things do change, there is hope for us all.

    xx

      March 23, 2015 11:20 PM GMT
    0
  • The churches and religous institutions are exempt from showing discrimination, in re;lation to same sex marriages and accepting transexuals, and it is a written exclusion in common law and statutes passed by parliament, there is a complete section in the GRA, specifically demonstrating  the churches right to  lawfully do that, in fact if one should scroll through  the exemptions they cover more paper than the actual marriage act.   The GRA is not complete in its entirity and refers to other statues and articles of common law. eg, the marriage act, discrimination act, sexual offences act. criminal law, within those acts amendments have been made to accommodate clauses in the GRA, so its a matter of cross referencing one with the other.

     

    I have tried to demonstrate just how complicated the decision to issue a GRC can be, giving simple things, when government departments are already taking your money in various ways when you have alread effectively changed your name and gender, but then they allow another person to be able to veto its issue confirming what the have already accepted, in short they take the money they say is due from somebody they can then declare does not exist, until they are able to issue that additional piece of paper.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
      March 23, 2015 11:51 PM GMT
    0