I was just reading the comments on Queerty about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefigh...#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case:

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (Houston based)

Her marriage was legal in the state of TX when she was married. Her surgery has nothing to do with her legal status as female. Her birth certificate had been changed...as had her other documentation.

Both she and the marriage were legal according to TX law.

This is something TX does a lot to transpeople. They give you legal status as the gender you are...but you have to 'behave'.

The Littleton case is a ridiculous case, and frankly it's too deep for me to get into here.

Also, about the husband's family saying this is 'for the children'. They're original petition for the injunction says NOTHING about the children. Additionally, they're not ONLY fighting for the widow benefits rightly due Nikki; they want the ENTIRE estate. All 600,000$ of the estate she's built with her husband. She was also the primary breadwinner. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. Three weeks ago, the husband's parents were taking the ex wife to court and smearing her name, in the custody battle. Now, they are siding with the ex wife to get the house, property, bank accounts, etc. The family also didn't make this 'all about the children' until yesterday when it was brought up in court.

On top of that, they've frozen a separate life insurance policy the husband took out in which he SPECIFICALLY named Nikki the beneficiary. This woman is living strictly on donations.

Here's a youtube of what's REALLY going on...as opposed to what the media is representing



Also, here's the transphobic interview that was conducted by a local television station. Be forewarned, this interview is extremely transphobic, and it was very difficult for me (personally) to watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id...dicate&section


This woman needs support right now. She needs financial support, and community support.

TransTexans are going to be greatly impacted by what happens with this case. This is extremely important to all transpeople in this state. The Littleton case has been used against us in a number of ways (not limited to marriage). It has even been used to deny us simple things like name changes.

The Texas Legislature came back after Littleton and in direct response to Littleton with amendments to Texas Family Code that allowed transpeople to use amended birth certificates and other documentation...because the Littleton ruling was so ridiculous.

Also, when the media states the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Littleton case, they are LYING. The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

To recap. This marriage was LEGAL in the state of Texas according to Texas Family Code. She was also LEGALLY female when they were married. "The" surgery <gag> is NOT a precursor to having your b.c. changed and/or SSA, DL, etc.

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

But we DON'T live in a perfect world. We live in the here and now, and this woman doesn't need is more pontificating and theorizing about her life. This is happening NOW...with the laws enacted NOW.

She needs support...as does the entire Texas trans community. This is a case that is going to have LONG lasting impacts on our actual LIVED lives RIGHT NOW.

Please help with support and listening...and please realize that what you're hearing on the major media is HIGHLY biased.


Dylan

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

Yeah, you're legally whatever gender you say you are, and you can get married. BUT the second there's some kind of issue (inheritance, etc), they strip it all from you (legal status, marriage, etc).

The reason for this is because Littleton was such a ridiculous ruling. It was just absolutely ridiculous...to the point that the TX legislature, judges, etc knew it was ridiculous, so they responded. They responded by making TONS of changes to Texas Family Code, Texas Safety Code, and a few other places. The laws they made in direct response to Littleton granted rights to transpeople and made things like gender marker changes, marriage licenses, name changes, etc EASIER. Basically, whatever they could do to loosen up the laws, they did it.

A LOT of things in the state of Texas are based STRICTLY on the individual judge's decision. So, if you get a decent judge, there's actual statute law that *may* help out transpeople. However, if you get some shitstick, hillbilly judge...they can rely on Littleton (and they will pull it out for ANY damned thing they wish when it comes to transpeople).

Littleton states you are what your chromosomes say you are...except NO ONE gets a chromosome test. Littleton is complex because it steps over itself constantly. It says one thing in one part, and another thing in another part.

You can get a better idea of the how the laws are fucked up here in the Great State O' if you click here and then click on the link that says, "fascinating review of Texas case law".

Again, Littleton is really difficult to explain, because it's so confusing. And the judge basically brings up a lot of god.


Dylan

Additionally, Nikki and her husband were NOT estranged or legally separated as has been reported in the media.


Dylan

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

I get what you're saying, but this is my point:

The husband's parents don't want her to inherit (clearly), so they have challenged her right to the estate.

Anyone can challenge an estate, for a whole variety of reasons.

If Nikki wasn't trans, they could challenge her right to inherit based on a variety of other grounds. They may not be true or fair or right, but they can do it - and the assets would be frozen until the case was decided.

Clearly, they are taking the fact that she is trans as their reason to challenge - and yes, that sucks.

We don't know the family or her. As much as we may feel sympathetic to her situation (and I do), we really don't know all the details of the relationships and history of this family.

It sounds like, from Dylan's post, what needs to change in Texas is legislation to prevent judges from being arbitrary in cases involving trans people.

I do see your point, and I feel that you are somehow thinking that I'm unsympathetic to the situation in this country. Believe me, I'm not.

I'm not actually saying it's the same, but I can also see that I'm not going to be able to explain it in a way that will be understood.

For the record, I get that trans people and gays are unfairly treated. I'm not saying we aren't. I'm not trans, but I do have a nasty ex-husband who may, at some point in the future, try to argue that I'm an unfit parent based solely on the fact that I love a woman. At that time, I will find myself in a legal battle too.

I am sympathetic. I'm just not seeing this the same way that you are.

I don't wish to continue to upset anyone, so I'll leave you all to this conversation. :rrose:

I have little doubt that this will actually happen if my diabetes kills me young - and, no, I would still want everyone to try to understand every side before making a decision.

And, my apologies, I had already posted my previous post when I saw this.

On another note. As Nikki left the courtroom yesterday a crowd of people followed her and yelled transphobic slurs at her and the people escorting her.

And again, this woman is now living strictly off of donations. She can't even stay in her house anymore because of this greedy and arbitrary use of a transphobic law.

If this judge upholds Littleton, trans people in this state are in for some serious ramifications.

The Littleton case has been used to invalidate completely valid marriages between transpeople, when one in the marriage didn't 'behave' themselves and keep it under their hats.

Again, the Littleton case has been used to deny transpeople the simplest of things...even name changes.



Dylan

On top of all of that, the news in Houston ran a big story last night about Nikki's 'early years'. They included information about her arrest history, birth certificate, court hearings for name change/gender change, etc.

Yet, I have heard NOT ONE THING about the husband's family. NOT A THING. No delving into THEIR pasts, medical conditions, operations. NO discussions of what THEIR bits look like. NO TALK of THEIR criminal histories. NOTHING.

We barely even get to know their names. BUT...EVERYTHING about Nikki's life is fair game and newsworthy.


Blatant Transphobia,
Dylan

I just watched a clip that a news station uncovered from over ten years ago with the newscaster saying, "Remember, Nikki was born male!" and part two will include a discussion of how DOES Nikki look so feminine?

They are positively fascinated by the freakishness that Nikki signifies to them with the subtext being: "Wow, look at the pretty psuedo-girl! You could be *fooled* too!"

ugh.

This is heartwrenching.

And another absolutely outrageous example of bias by the
community and goldigging by the ex.

I cant imagine the emotional trauma and anguish this woman is going through.

I'd like to know HOW does Nikki's mother in law look so feminine?

There was another Houston station that ran a story allllllllllllllllll about Nikki's criminal history with her entire rapsheet (including <gasp> a ticket for driving without her license! Can you believe?!! Transpeople are so dangerous! Driving without their licenses! The Horrahhhhhhh!>

And yet...still no word about the husband's family.

I'd really like a detailed description of the mother in law's bits! And I'd also like the mother in law to PROVE she's a woman.


Dylan

Am I the only one wondering how on a site with 150 firefighters present an 11 year captain ends up trapped in a warehouse alone with no back-up? I am interested in the investigation results as to how, exactly, this occurred.
Highly unusual.

slight of hand
 

wow, Cyclopea, you just pointed us to the hand that has the coin in it, instead of what they want us to focus on! No Shit! How did he end up trapped with no help around him?

Horrible case. And the point isn't the many complex details, history, grudges, side-taking, etc that exist in any family, the point is that in this case all of that is being played out through the prism of transphobia.

i cried watching the video of Nikki going into the courthouse being taunted and chased.

"How does it feel to be a MAN Nikki?"

"Liar"

"She needs to leave. We don't want her here and she needs move on".

ffs that woman just lost her husband, her home, and all her money. the unabashed hate she is being subjected to gives me great pause. i can only sit here and weep.

i hope anyone who can, donates to Nikki.

This whole thing is so disgusting it makes my stomach churn.

some research:

http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/newslett...FDNYHP_23.html

Apparently being trapped/caught is the number one cause of death amongst firefighters.

Are you all saying that this man was murdered? I don't get it.

Not being snarky, just wanting to understand.

:brightbulb: ding :brightbulb: ohhhh. now i get it. thanks for that. the thought that he would be unprotected because he is married to a transwomen is appalling. it also substantiates her claims that he know.

Thank you, this is exactly what I have been trying to say in several posts, and yet couldn't do so as on point as the way you have here.

Actually, it happens often. Firefighting is very dangerous. I have been a volunteer firefighter/emt for several years. Fires are unpredictable. And unfortunately even if you know that one of your own is trapped inside, that doesn't mean you can attempt a rescue. Fires can actually be too hot, and command can decide not to allow anyone else in. The reason for this is because losing one is bad enough. You send two in to save that one, and the other two get into trouble, so you send two more in and then they get into trouble....
It creates a horrible domino effect.
Stories like this happen:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/...-7-boston.html
http://www.firefighternation.com/for...ource=activity


For a family to drag this poor women through the mud like this is unbelievable and wholly unforgivable. There is no shame for some people. They probably disproved from the start and just waited for an opportunity to destroy her. Once her husband died, they had the perfect chance. Even if they lose, which I hope they do, the death by character assassination will be almost impossible for her to ever recover from. Like Dylan said, her life has been put out there and deemed newsworthy. Why isn't the focus on the fucked up dysfunctional family that thinks this is somehow ok?

Yeah, and on the ex, in which the whole family was against in court over custody of the children before the husband died. Where is she in the news?

I think it's disgusting, and the more I read, the more disgusted I become, particularly with the family and the news.

I read the Chronicle article posted by Arwen below and I am really frustrated with that report. I think it was off base, and would like to point that out, and probably was one of the worst I have read thus far. It was shoddy reporting in my opinion and didn't even touch on half of what is going on here. And when you talk about about what the family is doing, and only quote Nikki, and not even argue her lawyer's points, then well, I would call that fucking biased.

I am also confused by reports that keep noting that this is just the poor parents and their plight to save the children. If Nikki wins, the kids still get 300,000$, and college tuition, if not more.

Not one of the articles discusses the fact that Nikki is technically homeless right now. Not one of them cares not one bit what she is going through. Not one of them that I have found (mainstream) points out how messed up this is, regardless of what the family wants. I can't find one fucking article that will weigh how gross that is toward her, in mainstream news (only news that is Nikki supportive is coming from TG networks, groups, etc, and, well, Nikki herself). If anyone comes across news information that is Nikki positive or even critiques the family, can someone please post it or send it to me via pm? I would really appreciate that.

Also, Melissa pointed me to the Huffington Post, where the discussion (comments below the article) are quite interesting: link

I would also like to note that so many of the articles say, "Lawyers say..." or "Lawyers think..." WTF is that? These local papers are talking to the family's lawyer. Period. And that lawyer is even getting everything about Littleton wrong! So deceptive. Such a prime example as to how our community gets screwed over by the "unbiased" news.

Here's the latest video update of the case. The TG Center of Houston (absolutely amazing place, and makes me (sometimes) wish I lived in Houston, just so I could be a part of something so amazing...they actually have a trans archives and history library).

The next video will be of the entire press conference, and I'll post that when it comes out.

I'm writing various scathing letters to the news stations and newspapers in Houston for their incredibly biased and blatantly untrue coverage. I will be posting those later today (might be tomorrow; we have obligations today, but I'm going to try to squeeze it in) with addresses of where to send them if anyone else would like to send letters also (sending emails is a complete waste of time...please send letters, they make a much bigger impact).






Dylan

The news coverage I have seen has been deplorable- that includes the so-called liberal Huffington Post which gets a two thumbs down from me on their blurb and posting a pic of Nikki Araguz that looks like a mug shot. I watched one of the tv interviews some male "news reporter" did with Nikki Araguz and wanted to punch him every time he opened his mouth. It was disgusting.

Clearly none of the reporters get that she has always been female. They are all focused on the sex change (and whether she's been trying to "fool" anyone) and trying to pinpoint when she became a woman when in fact she has always been one. She has obviously lived her entire adult life as a woman. Her name change was in 1996 and she was born in 1975, which means she was around 21 when she changed her name.

I just don't know if she will meet the "legal" definition of woman to make her marriage legal. If not I assume she will be denied just as same sex couples would be. I certainly think she is entitled to the death benefits and of course her own/ assets and joint assets that she and her husband shared. I am interested in seeing if the case sets any precedents for trans people and/or same sex couples. I looked up her attorney and she is definitely very experienced and sounds like the best one for the job.

Her husband's family and their lawyer are disgusting. They are smearing their daughter-in-law and also their son and the two boys. I can't imagine Thomas Araguz (or anyone) wanting to be remembered this way or to see his children be put through this, not to mention his wife.

What happened at the court hearing that Nikki says she was pleased about? Anybody have an update?

something has been itching at my brain.

i wonder? does the new federal hate crime legislation that covers transgender as a protected class play into what these people, the town and the media is doing to this woman?

That sucks.
I consider what they are doing to this woman beyond violent, but I suppose the legal definition won't agree with me. boo.