Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday





Also, I was reading somewhere yesterday that some people think this is just some Texas, backwoods, hillbilly law. Be sure there are other states that have said exactly the same thing (for the purposes of marriage, transpeople are their birth sex...period). Texas judges made their decision based on other states' case laws (at the time of hearing Littleton). New York has Anonymous vs Anonymous (transsexual marriages are not recognized. I don't know if this case has been overturned yet). Ohio has the Ladrach case (a person's sex is determined at birth by an anatomical examination).

Idaho is (or maybe has entered legislation, at this point in time) attempting to add legislation that would state marriage can only be between a "natural born man and a natural born woman" (they already have a marriage is between a man and a woman statute).

There's only one state (New Jersey) which has a case in which a trans marriage has been considered valid (M.T. v. J.T.)

One problem with the Littleton case is that it relies heavily on chromosomes (it actually makes the assumption that transpeople's chromosomes are cis-related) when A) NO ONE gets chromosome testing at birth unless there's some sort of issue (usually, no one gets chromosome tested in a lifetime), B) there's more than just XX, XY chromosome patterns, C) chromosome testing has been ruled unreliable. The law doesn't leave room for those people whose chromosomes are outside xy or xx. It also makes the assumption that penis=xy and vagina=xx, when science, doctors, and lay people KNOW this is just NOT necessarily the case.

So, basically, there is the assumption that anatomy = chromosomes. Basically, Littleton is saying doctors determine sex with nothing more than a cursory glance at one's anatomy and somehow this is 'chromosomal'. And since, "God doesn't make mistakes" (the first judge to hear Littleton actually said this)...doctors are God and their word is final (based on nothing scientific...only a cursory glance at genitals. And what if those genitals are ambiguous? Sex is up to the discretion of the doctor.)

On another note, since only four states have ANY laws discussing transpeople's marriages, IF this issue comes up in one of the other 46 states (and it will), those judges are going to have to also work off case law from different states. This means, Littleton, Anonymous v Anonymous, and Ladrach are going to probably be the cases most (uneducated about trans-issues/or transphobic) judges are going to follow (to justify their own bigotry).

Ergo, this issue affects transpeople everywhere.

On top of that, and as I've already stated numerous times, these 'marriage' cases lead to other forms of oppression against transpeople. For example, Ohio (home of the Ladrach case) will NOT change the sex marker on your birth certificate. They just won't do it. This means, a transperson can never have a correct birth certificate if they were born in Ohio (there are other states which will not change the marker on your b.c. Idaho, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Gender markers on driver licenses cannot be changed. Gender markers on government issued identification are incredibly important, and trickle down to affect employment, housing, etc of transpeople. And since 9/11 government issued IDs are even more important. Transpeople have been/are being/ can be labeled as terrorists. And they're definitely being harassed at airports. Merely changing your name puts you in a computer for scrutiny at airports for two years after your name change.

Sorry for the ramble, but this really affects so much more than just Texans and marriage.




Dylan

Lovo-Lara case in North Carolina also deemed a marriage where one partner was trans valid.


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

North Carolina - North Carolina law allows amendment of a birth certificate for persons who have received gender reassignment surgery. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A- 118(b)(4) (2008). In Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 l&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005), the Board held that North Carolina recognized a marriage as valid and heterosexual where one of the spouses had received gender reassignment surgery and her birth certificate had been amended to reflect her changed sex

New Jersey - New Jersey law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a marriage solemnized between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received sex reassignment surgery, so long as the other claimed spouse was aware of the sex change. M.J. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 355 A.2d 204 (NJ.Super. 1976).

Maryland - Maryland law permits a change of the person's legal sex, on the basis of sex reassignment surgery. Re: Heiiig, 372 Md. 692, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003). This case did not involve the issue of the person's ability to marry a person of the same birth sex. Until such time as the Maryland courts clarify this issue, however, CIS adjudicators will assume that Maryland law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a claimed marriage between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received gender reassignment surgery.

States that DO NOT recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual Marriages As of November 2008, the following States do not recognize gender reassignment surgery as changing a person's legal sex, for purposes of marriage:

Florida - Kantams v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155 (Fla. App. 2004);
Illinois - Re Marriage of Simmons, 355 III. App. 3d 942, 825 N.W. 2d 303 (III. App. 2005)
Kansas - Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191.42P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002).
Ohio - Re: Ladrach, 32 Ohio Misc. 2d 6, 513 N.E.2d 828 (Oh. Probate 1987);
Tennessee - Tennessee Code 68-3-203(d)
Texas - Littleton v. Prange, 9S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999).


source

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Lovo-Lara case in North Carolina also deemed a marriage where one partner was trans valid.


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

North Carolina - North Carolina law allows amendment of a birth certificate for persons who have received gender reassignment surgery. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A- 118(b)(4) (2008). In Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 l&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005), the Board held that North Carolina recognized a marriage as valid and heterosexual where one of the spouses had received gender reassignment surgery and her birth certificate had been amended to reflect her changed sex

New Jersey - New Jersey law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a marriage solemnized between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received sex reassignment surgery, so long as the other claimed spouse was aware of the sex change. M.J. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 355 A.2d 204 (NJ.Super. 1976).

Maryland - Maryland law permits a change of the person's legal sex, on the basis of sex reassignment surgery. Re: Heiiig, 372 Md. 692, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003). This case did not involve the issue of the person's ability to marry a person of the same birth sex. Until such time as the Maryland courts clarify this issue, however, CIS adjudicators will assume that Maryland law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a claimed marriage between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received gender reassignment surgery.

States that DO NOT recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual Marriages As of November 2008, the following States do not recognize gender reassignment surgery as changing a person's legal sex, for purposes of marriage:

Florida - Kantams v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155 (Fla. App. 2004);
Illinois - Re Marriage of Simmons, 355 III. App. 3d 942, 825 N.W. 2d 303 (III. App. 2005)
Kansas - Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191.42P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002).
Ohio - Re: Ladrach, 32 Ohio Misc. 2d 6, 513 N.E.2d 828 (Oh. Probate 1987);
Tennessee - Tennessee Code 68-3-203(d)
Texas - Littleton v. Prange, 9S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999).


source

Thank you so much!

I knew the info I was going off of was a little outdated (it was specific to the Littleton case and which cases those appellate judges used in rendering their decisions).


Thanks Again,
Dylan