Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[suebee]

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?

[Arwen]

Here is another link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7120408.html

Heartbreaking..the picture of her. Just heartbreaking.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?

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.

[Soon]

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. There are some news reports that suggest that she is intersexed, had lived her life as male and then did her final transition as an adult.

Every state has its own laws when it comes to transgender folks and their marriages.

In Texas, the Littleton case made it clear that you ARE the gender you were assigned at birth and no surgery/hormones will alter that fact--and, consequently, your marriage, for legal purposes, will be deemed a same sex marriage; therefore it is an invalid marriage and not recognized.

The Littleton case made it clear that no one who changes their sex will be afforded any privileges as a heterosexual marriage.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Every state has its own laws when it comes to transgender folks and their marriages.

In Texas, the Littleton case made it clear that you ARE the gender you were assigned at birth and no surgery/hormones will alter that fact--and, consequently, your marriage, for legal purposes, will be deemed a same sex marriage; therefore it is an invalided marriage and not recognized.

Doesn't make it right. Does it?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Linus

Doesn't make it right. Does it?

Of course it doesn't make it right but, unfortunately, it is the law.

I was commenting on YOUR statement saying that if there is an F on her BC then their marriage should be "legal and definitive". It should be...but this is not the case.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

I thought you were stating that their marriage is legal--but it isn't. (at the moment due to Littleton).


ETA: Trust me; I know how "not right" it is to not have a marriage recognized due to a state having a specific law that doesn't recognize a marriage where one partner is trans.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Melissa

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

Originally Posted by Melissa

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

Or, another option is that he always knew, but when he chose to separate he was angry with her, so he shared with his family that she is trans and pretended that he just learned about it.

Moreover, if he is leaving her and doesn't want to go through a divorce (and knows he doesn't have to due to Littleton), the best thing to do is to OUT her and of course to say that he "didn't know".

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Or, another option is that he always knew, but when he chose to separate he was angry with her, so he shared with his family that she is trans and pretended that he just learned about it.

Moreover, if he is leaving her and doesn't want to go through a divorce (and knows he doesn't have to due to Littleton), the best thing to do is to OUT her and of course to say that he "didn't know".

That's certainly a possibility.

The article I read said only that they were recently separated, but not that he had started any legal proceedings to end the marriage before his death.

I think it's one of those situations in which it's impossible to know where the truth lies.

I don't have much faith in the Texas court upholding her rights though.

[firie]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

~~~~~~

And as for Littleton--and no offense, but unless you live here and you are personally battling Littleton, then I don't think you can say it's not entirely indisputable. Dylan went to court to get an "M" on his license, and the judge denied it because of Littleton. Believe me, it's kinda the bible here as far as Texas courts go.

No offense, Sue. It's just one thing to argue that, but it's another thing entirely when it impacts one directly.

And honestly? Back to the family, I am going to default to her story regardless what the family says. She deserves that from me, in my opinion.