Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Linus

If there is an F on her birth certificate and they are married, then it should be set as legal and definitive.

Either way, it shouldn't matter whether there was a will or not. She was married to him and deserves the same rights as any other couple.

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok. Me and Rufus often wonder about this. We have wills up the wazoo but still wonder if it is enough. We will be heading back to the lawyer this year to add more things and update our docs. I always worry if something happens to one of us that if family contests anything will our docs hold up. It is just something I fret about. Nikki's situation is my worse nightmare.

My only hope in this big mess is that this lawsuit ends up challenging the Littleton law and it all gets overthrown. In the meantime I feel terrible for Nikki Aruguz who is trying to mourn and fight this at the same time. I imagine all she does is cry. It was hard to watch the news video of her.

Melissa

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok.

Melissa

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

Urgh, yuck. It just makes my stomach turn.

Melissa

[suebee]

Originally Posted by Rockinonahigh

This is 2010..we are suposed to be the the most up todate country in the world...big azz lie in my book,Texas as well as other states need a big growning up to be considered on the ball about this situation,Louisiana as well.A will would have helped a lot but maybe not...this world is just so screwd up its not real about so much.Something was said on tv that they were married for two years but didnt know about Nikkis transition..somehow I doubt that is even a possablity...his parents didnt know but its wasnt there bizz to know.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm about to say. I've lived a great deal of my life in a Canadian border town, have as some of my closest friends Americans, and am in love with an American. But although it may be one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, it is not necessarily the most up-to-date. Even if we only looked at health care and GLBTQ rights, the U.S. is way behind a number of other "western" countries. There are number of reasons for this, but honestly, the U.S. has a long way to go to live up to it's obvious potential.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

I did read that since the Littleton case did not go to the Supreme court that it is not necessarily indisputable.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

[B][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"]



I did read that since the Littleton case did not go to the Supreme court that it is not necessarily indisputable.

I never said it was indisputable; however, it is legal precedent and that counts for a lot.

I hope this case does challenge the current legal precedent--that was set by the Littleton--that states you are you are the sex you were assigned at birth and no transition will alter that fact for legal (in this case, marital) purposes.

[BullDog]

My heart certainly goes out to Nikki. One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned is, under the law if she is not recognized as a woman then she will receive the same treatment as same sex couples. It certainly is homophobia (even though she may not be homosexual) as much as it is transphobia. I have heard of cases where a lesbian police officer was killed in the line of duty and her partner did not get spousal death benefits. I believe it was in Florida. It is true that if she was legally recognized as a woman and legally married to a man then she would be deemed heterosexual and her marriage would be seen as legitimate. That has to do as much with heterosexuality as it does with cisgender.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by BullDog

My heart certainly goes out to Nikki. One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned is, under the law if she is not recognized as a woman then she will receive the same treatment as same sex couples. It certainly is homophobia (even though she may not be homosexual) as much as it is transphobia. I have heard of cases where a lesbian police officer was killed in the line of duty and her partner did not get spousal death benefits. I believe it was in Florida. It is true that if she was legally recognized as a woman and legally married to a man then she would be deemed heterosexual and her marriage would be seen as legitimate. That has to do as much with heterosexuality as it does with cisgender.

Originally Posted by Stearns

If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Although a will may allow for transference of some property after death, it would not allow for any pension/death benefits (in this case, so far, 60 000 in benefits have been frozen in addition to whatever other assets), to be given to the surviving same sex spouse--which Nikki Araguz is considered under Texas law if she was identified as male at birth.

Bulldog,

I think we have mentioned it and realize that is the issue as well. Of course if there weren't restrictions on same sex marriage, this discussion wouldn't take place b/c, either way, their marriage would be considered valid. I don't think anyone is missing the fact that this has to do with homophobia as well as transphobia.

It isn't just that her transition does not legally make her a woman for legal purposes but that, under law, she is still a man and considered to be in a same sex marriage. I get that and found two examples where Stearns and myself both stated their marriage--b/c she was born male--is now treated as a same sex one--hence, VOID.

I think most understand the inegalitarian structure that prevents their marriage from being recognized. I don't think anyone is missing that piece to why this is an injustice.


About Florida: This State has, at 3 (!) different times, passed legislation to ensure that a marriage is only recognized as a man and woman and NO other union shall be considered for legal purposes (common law, civil union etc). So, of course, the surviving partner would not receive benefits. Stories like that, sadly, are all too common around here and the many other states that have passed such unjust legislation.

[Soon]

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)

[firie]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok. Me and Rufus often wonder about this. We have wills up the wazoo but still wonder if it is enough. We will be heading back to the lawyer this year to add more things and update our docs. I always worry if something happens to one of us that if family contests anything will our docs hold up. It is just something I fret about. Nikki's situation is my worse nightmare.

My only hope in this big mess is that this lawsuit ends up challenging the Littleton law and it all gets overthrown. In the meantime I feel terrible for Nikki Aruguz who is trying to mourn and fight this at the same time. I imagine all she does is cry. It was hard to watch the news video of her.

Melissa

Melissa!

The lawyer, Phyllis Randolph Frye, who was actually the lawyer for Littleton, thinks they might have a chance in this case. I don't know. The whole thing makes me sick at heart. The whole thing.

I just think about my family doing this to Dylan. The courts doing this to Dylan.

I don't know about a will. I am going to do some more research. Dylan might know but he is on the phone with someone you know, lol.