Lesbian Couple "Looks into Transgender" as a Loophole to Get Married

[Linus]

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.

Originally Posted by ~ocean

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

[~ocean]

Originally Posted by Linus

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.



~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

I agree Linnus ~ it was a poor choice of words w/ no intent to offend ~

[Words]

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by Words

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by Kelt

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.

It's a good point. Then I blame Oprah and the media for purposefully manipulating a gap in mainstream understanding of gender, sex and sexual desire. They are all different things and frankly this is the media having a Funtime shit stirring again.

I'm not falling for it.