Editing Gender Recognition Act 2004 (section)

==Concerns regarding marriages and civil partnerships==

Concerns about the act were raised by supporters of transgender rights, particularly regarding marriages and civil partnerships.<ref>{{cite web |title=Till Political Convenience Do Us Part |first=Christine |last=Burns |authorlink=Christine Burns |url=http://blog.plain-sense.co.uk/2012/03/till-political-convenience-do-us-part.html |access-date=20 April 2012 |archive-date=8 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120408205119/http://blog.plain-sense.co.uk/2012/03/till-political-convenience-do-us-part.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|first=Peter|last=Tatchell|title=Why our new same-sex marriage is not yet equal marriage|language=en|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/07/why-our-new-same-sex-marriage-not-yet-equal-marriage|work=New Statesman|date=2013-07-19|access-date=2020-06-15}}</ref> Due to marriage then being restricted in UK law to opposite-sex couples and the [[Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019|then]] lack of availability of [[civil partnership]]s to opposite-sex couples, the act required people who are married to divorce or annul their marriage in order for them to be issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate. This requirement was abolished in December 2014, nine months after the [[Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013]] permitted same-sex marriages.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/26/civil-partnerships-convert-marriages-december-transgender-same-sex |title=Civil partnerships can be converted to marriages from December |first=Rowena |last=Mason |date=26 June 2014 |work=The Guardian |access-date=29 November 2020}}</ref> In England, Scotland, and Wales, such an application from a married person requires written consent from the spouse – the so-called spousal veto. Applicants in Scotland benefit from a workaround, where it is possible for applicants in Scotland to apply to the sheriff court to have their interim GRC replaced with a full GRC, bypassing the "spousal veto". Some parliamentarians, such as [[Evan Harris]], viewed the original requirement as inhumane and destructive of the family.<ref>{{Cite Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmstand/a/st040309/pm/40309s09.htm |title=Gender Recognition Bill [Lords] |speaker=Evan Harris |house=House of Commons Standing Committee A |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |date=9 March 2004 |column=60 |access-date=February 26, 2021}}</ref> MP [[Hugh Bayley]] said in the Commons debate "I can think of no other circumstance in which the state tells a couple who are married and who wish to remain married that they must get divorced".<ref>{{Cite Hansard |speaker=Hugh Bayley |house=House of Commons |title=Gender Recognition Bill (2nd reading) |date=23 February 2004 |column=60}}</ref><ref>{{Cite Hansard|speaker=Andrew Selous |house=House of Commons |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |title=Gender Recognition Bill (2nd reading) |date=23 February 2004 |column=64}}</ref> Despite this opposition, the government chose to retain this requirement of the Bill. Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, [[David Lammy]], speaking for the Government, said "it is the Government's firm view that we cannot allow a small category of same-sex marriages".<ref>{{cite Hansard |speaker=David Lammy |house=House of Commons Standing Committee A |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |date=9 March 2004 |column=69}}</ref> It was suggested in the debates that the number of [[transgender]] people who have undertaken gender reassignment and who are currently living in a marriage was no more than 200.<ref>{{cite Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040223/debtext/40223-19.htm#40223-19_spnew8 |speaker=[[Mark Oaten]] |house=House of Commons |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |title=Gender Recognition Bill (2nd reading) |date=23 February 2004 |column=69}}</ref>

Although the [[Civil Partnership Act 2004]] allows the creation of civil partnerships between same sex couples, before 2013, a married couple that included a transgender partner could not simply re-register their new status. They had to have their marriage dissolved, gain legal recognition of the new gender and then register for a civil partnership. This is like any divorce with the associated paperwork and costs. Once the annulment was declared final and the GRC issued, the couple could then make arrangements with the local registrar to have the civil partnership ceremony. The marriage was ended and a completely new arrangement brought into being which did not in all circumstances (such as wills) necessarily follow on seamlessly. This is also true for civil partnerships that included a transgender partner: the existing civil partnership needed to be dissolved and the couple could then enter into a marriage afterward. For a couple in a marriage or civil partnership where both partners are transgender, they could have their gender recognition applications considered at the same time; however, they were required to dissolve their existing marriage/civil partnership and then re-register their marriage/civil partnership with their new genders.

Tamara Wilding of the [[Beaumont Society]] pressure group said that it was "not fair that people in this situation should have to annul their marriage and then enter a civil partnership. The law needs tidying up. It would be easy to put an amendment in the civil partnership law to allow people who have gone through gender-reassignment, and want that to be recognised, to have the status of their relationship continued."<ref>{{Cite web|date=2008-05-01|title=Transgender husband annuls marriage and enters into civil partnership|url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transsexual-husband-annuls-marriage-and-enters-into-civil-partnership-with-wife-to-keep-pension-6651662.html|access-date=2020-06-15|website=Evening Standard|language=en}}</ref> The emotional stress caused is immeasurable as in the case of a Scottish couple.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article584590.ece|title=Sex-change couple seek marriage recognition|last=Fracassini|first=Camillo|date=30 October 2005|work=[[The Times]]|access-date=7 September 2008 | location=London}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

The [[Equality and Human Rights Commission]] (EHRC) appreciated the challenges to married transgender people and their partners presented by schedule 2 of the act and in a recent submission to government they recommend: "The government amends the Gender Recognition Act to allow for the automatic conversion of a marriage into a civil partnership upon one member of the couple obtaining a gender recognition certificate."<ref>[http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/Briefings/ICCPR.doc Submission on the United Kingdom's sixth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. Equality and Human Rights Commission. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081002162312/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/Briefings/ICCPR.doc |date=2 October 2008 }}</ref>

=== Post-2013 ===
These concerns were ameliorated somewhat by the passage of the [[Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013]], since marriage is now available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. Under the current law, when a married couple includes a transgender person, the transgender person’s spouse must either give their approval for the change in legal gender, or else divorce. This has been described, and opposed, by transgender activists as a "spousal veto" on their legal transition.<ref>{{Cite news|first=Helen|last=Belcher|title=We won't have truly equal marriage until we get rid of the spousal veto|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-wont-have-truly-equal-marriage-until-we-get-rid-spousal-veto|access-date=2020-06-15|date=2014-04-04|work=New Statesman|language=en}}</ref> In 2019 and again in 2024, the [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]] included the removal of the "spousal veto" as part of their manifesto.<ref>{{Cite news|first=Ailbhe|last=Rea|title=Liberal Democrats decide to remove the controversial trans 'spousal veto'|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/liberal-democrats-decide-remove-controversial-trans-spousal-veto|access-date=2020-06-15|work=New Statesman|date=2019-09-14|language=en}}</ref> [[Elizabeth Barker, Baroness Barker|Baroness Barker]] introduced a private member's bill to amend the law in 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-02-25|first=Liz|last=Barker|title=It's time to abolish the 'spousal veto' over gender recognition for married trans people|url=https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/its-time-to-abolish-the-spousal-veto-over-gender-recognition-for-married-trans-people|access-date=2020-06-15|website=Politics Home|language=en}}</ref> By contrast, some [[Gender-critical feminism|gender critical]] wives of trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates have called the provision a "spousal exit clause", suggesting it is required to protect heterosexual women from "being trapped in legally same sex marriages that they did not sign up to".<ref>{{cite web| title= Written evidence submitted by Trans Widows Voices| url= https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16197/pdf/ | date= November 2020| website= committees.parliament.uk | accessdate= 31 October 2024}}</ref>