Lesbians, gays and bisexuals with same-sex partners can jurisdiction shop in order to marry legally. A California same-sex couple can travel to New York, D.C. or one of the other states with marriage equality to tie the knot.
Of course, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 mean that a Californian same-sex couple married in New York would not have their marriage recognized by the federal government or their home state.
But if there was a legal way, as early as tomorrow, to marry the same-sex partner you wanted to marry and have the federal, state and legal benefits of marriage, but the how of it might be considered “iffy” – or could be considered gaming the system – would you do it?
Actually, there is a way for Californian trans people who’ve legally changed their sex to do something such as that – to marry a same-sex partner in a way where at least the federal government will consider the marriage a legal, heterosexual marriage. All that a trans person has to do is jurisdiction shop and deny their gender identity and legal sex for a day.
Consider: California law allows trans people to change their sex from male-to-female (MTF), or female-to-male (FTM) and have their new gender recognized officially.
However, the day a trans person changes their sex, it legally changes who that trans person can marry in California. MTFs go from only being able to legally marry women to only being able to marry men; FTMs go from only being able to marry men to only being able to marry women.
But Kansas and Texas have had court rulings, which establish that sex assigned at birth, and recorded on one’s birth certificate, is one’s legal sex for the purposes of marriage – for one’s entire life.
So, for example, if a Californian trans woman went with her same-sex partner to Texas, the trans woman could show her original birth certificate and marry her same-sex partner heterosexually. She could then claim the federal benefits of marriage (all 1,000-plus of them), including tax and inheritance benefits.
Remember; all that a trans person has to do to marry a same-sex partner is deny gender identity and legal sex at the time he or she applies for a marriage license.
But this trans woman would still legally be a woman in California.
So, would DOMA and Prop. 8 apply to this hypothetical and hypocritical marriage? The answer is that this hasn’t been litigated. It is a modern day Loving v. Virginia problem in the sense that trans women have the fundamental right to marry, but the question is who can trans people marry and not have their marriages dissolved at state lines.
On a personal level, would you consider this hypothetical trans woman’s behavior ethical? Would you consider it deceptive to have trans people state that their sex markers on their birth certificates don’t match their immutable gender identities, but then see a trans person effectively renounce their gender identity for the convenience and legal benefits of heterosexual marriage? Would it just be doing what many gays, lesbians and bisexuals would do if they obtain federal and state benefits that heterosexual marriage affords?
Of course, if a public-figure who is a trans lesbian woman engaged in that kind of renunciation of her gender for just one day in Kansas or Texas, the religious right and social conservatives would have a field day with such a development.
How would socially conservative non-profit organizations, such as the National Organization For Marriage (NOM) and the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), react to news of this hypothetical trans woman’s same-sex marriage? Do you believe that these media and non-profit organizations would use this as an argument against marriage equality? Do you believe that situation would hurt and/or muddy the waters for the LGBT community’s struggle for marriage equality?
Any informed person’s answer to all of the above is “yes.” That hypothetical situation, should it actually occur, could also be used in a legal argument against Prop. 8 and DOMA.
Trans people can jurisdiction shop for marriage equality just as lesbian, gay and bisexual people can – but when trans people jurisdiction shop for marriage equality, the issues are very different from the issues of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. It seems to highlight just how much marriage equality isn’t just an issue for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, but is an issue for trans people as well.
Being a legitimate transsexual, transitioning, having the correct surgeries and properly changing documentation allows a woman born in any state other than Kansas and Texas can marry in any of the fifty states, possessions and US territories. The catch is that so called trans person wouldn’t be transgender at all. Furthermore the new California law when it becomes effective on January 1 doesn’t change anything except for denying concerned citizens the right to submit friend of the court brief in cases of court ordered sex change.
(When was the last time your birth certificate had a space for gender)
With all the hand wringing and legal jockeying a fraud is still a fraud and females don’t have a penis.
What is wrong? Well, for one thing, this just reinforces the idea that the transition of true transsexuals is not legitimate. Of course, given that Sandeen plans to commit a fraud and attempt to get his birth certificate changed even though he has not remotely changed his sex. This, along with frauds like that of Sandeen, make a complete mockery of the law. If someone has undergone SRS, and has legitimately changed their birth certificate, and they wish to engage in a same-sex marriage then the answer is easy…go to a jurisdiction where SAME-SEX marriage is allowed. Going to a state like Texas or Kansas, engaging in a fraud, claiming to be one’s birth sex, and then marrying might well eventually wind up in a court case that would hurt transsexuals in not only Texas and Kansas, but other states. While I sure the transgressive nature of such an act might well appeal to a gender non-conformist like Sandeen, it would do very real harm to true transsexuals, which is, of course a win-win for Sandeen.
No, this is not about marriage equality. It is about extremists trying to show just how gender transgressive they are. It should be condemned by anyone with a shred of common sense.
And no, females do not have penises. Sandeen is not a female, no matter how delusional he is, nor will he EVER be a woman, even if he has his penis removed.
First, given the comment from “Just Jennifer,” I’d like to note that I have no reason to check between anyone legs unless I’m planning to have sex with that person.
As for jurisdiction shopping…
First, I consider to marriage laws of the states that don’t have marriage equality to be profoundly immoral. The only argument against marriage equality that would make any sense is the argument that gay people ought to be discriminated against. That went out the window (thankfully) in Romer v. Evans. If there’s nothing legally wrong with being gay, then there is no reason to discriminate against gay people.
If Erica (born Eric) can marry Andrea (her bio-woman partner) in a state that denies she’s a woman, I say, “work the system to your advantage.” We are morally obligated to wrest whatever advantage we can from a discriminatory system. Get your marriage in Texas, your registered domestic partnership in California, and file as married with the IRS.
Well, it is not a matter of “checking,” it is a matter of someone making very public statements claiming that being castrated makes him a female. That is just a bit much, and shows serious disrespect to true transsexuals.
Now, your comments show a complete lack of understanding of transsexuals. This is not a joke to us. I would never consider doing such a thing if I wanted to marry a woman (unlikely since I am straight). If I wanted to marry a woman, I would go to a state that allows same sex marriage. Doing what you suggest would be dishonest, and would be a major denial of who I am.
Your comments are clearly from a certain perspective, and I respect your right to that view, but you need to understand that it can be taken as quite insensitive to views of those who have suffered from a serious medical problem.
I don’t think anyone is making the claim that “being castrated makes him a female.” It’s not the dangling stuff between my legs that makes me a man.
The whole point with transgender people is that their body sex does not match their brain sex. I was previously skeptical about this, since I know that “born in the body of the wrong sex” used to be used to explain homosexuality (while feeling my skepticism had absolutely no bearing on how other people should live their lives).
The point I’m making is that a transgender person born in a male body is a woman from day 1, not when there’s been surgery to construct a vagina. I think it does a huge disservice to transgender people to assume they’re somehow fake. I just don’t think that’s the case.
I think if one of us is showing an insensitivity to transgender people, it’s you. Transgender women are not simply “castrated males.” Those who are preparing for “bottom surgery” are not drag queens, they’re women. I wonder about your emphasis on castration.
Actually, that is exactly what Sandeen has claimed. And I agree, the brain is important. Now, is Sandeen a woman? No. His brain is quite male. And yes, the idea of “born in the wrong body” was originally used as a description of homosexuality, thought clearly that was wrong. But it is something of an explanation for TRANSSEXUALISM, not transgender. They are NOT the same thing. Transgender is about “transgressing” gender. While some try to make the term mean “changing gender” that is not possible. If one is born with a male gendered brain, then one will ALWAY have a male gendered brain. You could not more become a woman than I could be a man. You could change your gender expression, just as I falsely presented as a male earlier in life, but you cannot “decide” to become a woman.
Transgender is an artificial political/social construct. It consists of people who identify as “transgender.” Nothing more. Being transgender does not make a man into a woman. There are a lot of men who claim to be women, but who are not. Some go so far as to have full SRS, but they remain men.
Now, to return to the issue of “castration,” Sandeen has undergone that procedure and is claiming it is “full sex change surgery.” He is planning to defraud the State of California to get his birth certificate changed, That is why I emphasize castration in his specific case. And no one has suggested that pre-op TRANSSEXUALS are “drag queens.” The key point here is that transsexuals are those who are seeking to, or who have, changed their sex. There is, for example, no such thing as a “non-op transsexual.” The proper term there would be “full time cross dresser,” They are not women, as women do not desire to have penises. Think about it…would you willingly give up your penis? Of course not. That is part of what makes you a man.
As soon as you drop the words “social construct” in, you lose your argument. Postmodernist theories are not useful for drawing lines in the sand.
If you accept the concept of social constructionism, you have to eventually get to the conclusion that the category of “sex” is just as much a social construct as gender or race. In reality, it is an artificial classification based on a bunch of little other artificial classifications, none of which are objectively binary, and which one(s) defines “sex” is a constantly moving goalpost based on keeping whatever trans/etc people one doesn’t accept down. In this case, because you want to pretend that Autumn Sandeen is not a woman, you make a big deal about the shape of a specific part of her junk, as if it trumps hormones, neurology, appearance, karyotype, gamete production.
Let’s ask John D. how he would feel about willingly giving up his testes, and taking estrogen until he grows boobs, and whether he thinks that is totally unrelated to him being a man.
Not to mention how your restrictive definition of womanhood actually kicks a lot of cis women and FAAB transgender people out of the “woman” category. (If I think it would be good to have a penis, I must be a transsexual man? Or am I a crossdressing woman since I have no plans for surgery? Or am I a non-person, someone undeserving of basic human rights, because I do not fit easily in the boxes you want to arbitrarily confine people to?)
Shaed, you do realize that you are making no sense? There is a major difference between something essentially subjective and, well, imaginary, like “transgender” being a social construct, and something objective and inherent, like sex being called that. Oh, but wait, that is exactly what many of the more extreme transgender activists claim. That sex is something one can simply choose, like one chooses an outfit to wear.
Now, by definition, a female who desires to have a penis is, at the very least, someone with gender identity disorder. Whether or not it rises to the level of transsexualism is something for a therapist to decide.
And no, I am not pretending that Sandeen is not a woman. I am stating as an objective fact that Sandeen is not a woman. He can take all the hormones he wants. His neurology is clearly male. His appearance is that of a cross dresser. His kayo type and prior to his becoming a eunuch, his gamete production, are all male. Simply put, he is a man, and he is a male.
And a man can lose his testicles and still function as a man. While most would not wish to lose their testicles, they would be far more upset at losing the penis.
Somebody doing this in TX or KS would be following their birth certificate laws. That would probably be the best way to get those discriminatory laws changed, either because of negative reactions by groups like NOM or a court case. I think such a person would be very brave making that sacrifice for the cause.
All it results in, is the people who do not accept the veracity of transsexualism saying “So? They are men.” Now, there is a group in England that argues that under such conditions, there should be NO right to marry at all. One is a male by birth, and a female by virtue of having a vagina, so they can not marry anyone.
Be careful of what you wish for. And please realize, transsexuals are not pawns to be used in your fight for marriage equality. Your views are very insensitive to the feelings of true transsexuals. In spite of what Sandeen claims, our fight is not your fight. While I support same sex marriage, have friends who were legally married before Prop. 8, and was even the photographer at a friend’s same sex marriage, I have no personal stake in the issue beyond the needs of my friends. If and when I meet someone I want to marry, I would not want my marriage viewed as anything other than a traditional heterosexual marriage.
The one thing that needs to be cleared up is all marriage laws are immoral.
The marriage laws were a response to racial hygiene laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Just because I believe marriage is between one man and one woman in the eyes of my (the Jewish and Christian) God doesn’t mean I should have the right to force that upon you. If Joe and Jack or Suzie and Autumn want to get married it will always be known as a same sex or homosexual marriage, that’s just the plain simple and blunt facts of life.
What determines what a male or female are is up to the lawyers and they have settled on certain physical charismatics. A female has a vagina and a Male has a penis.
The new California law doesn’t change the definition used in California nor does it change what is actually required to change the sex marker on a birth certificate it does remove the ability of people to submit friend of the court briefs to ether support or deny such a change.
Now I would hope there would be no fraud because like Martian Luther King I believe good prevails he said it best though.
“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
Martin wouldn’t approve of fraud nigher would your LGB peers.
A fraud has no credibility.
MLK Jr. also said:
“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
So to you and Just Jennifer I’d just say that one could say that one who challenges the sex and gender norms of society written into law is really expressing the highest respect of the law.
One could make an argument that Meghan Stabler (see the LGBT Weekly article “HRC trans board member marries as sex opposite of post-op gender”; http://lgbtweekly.jeffjungblut.com/?p=16022) is challenging the sex and gender norms of society in a very creative way.
Autumn Charles Manson could have used the same quote to justify what he did.
If you go through with attempting to change your sex based on being castrated you are committing fraud.
Because Sex has nothing to do with gender.
Sex is between the legs
Gender is between the ears.
The quote is from the Letter To A Birmingham Jail. It’s a call to action for civil right; an argument in favor of direct action. In context and in tone of the speech from which the quote was taken, it’s not one that that Charles Manson could effectively use.
If we take the action in the brick-and-mortar world by Meghan Stabler as a direct action, then the intent of MLK Jr.’s statement on direct action — from that same speech — would apply:
“You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.”
And too, you stated in your first comment in this comment thread “With all the hand wringing and legal jockeying a fraud is still a fraud and females don’t have a penis.” But, now in another comment your write “Sex is between the legs[.] Gender is between the ears.” From your second statement then, there are females who don’t conform to your first criteria. All trans women, as well as women who identify as women of transsexual history, began the transition process by not conforming to societal sex and gender norms.
The point I’m making in the initial article is that marriage equality is a trans issue because how sex is determined for those who was identified as one sex at birth, but have changed their legal sex later, makes a difference on what sex of person they can marry. And because of DOMA, trans people, as well as those of transsexual history, who’ve married an opposite sex partner in one state can be said to have married a same sex partner in another state. That means there is a Loving v. Virginia problem that trans women/women of transsexual history have a fundamental right to marry and have their marriages legally recognized across all state lines, yet trans people/women of transsexual history have entered into marriages aren’t uniformly recognized as valid in all 50 states.
And with an LGBT audience being the main audience for this piece, pointing out that this marriage equality challenge shows lesbian, gay, and bisexual people that marriage equality issues are issues trans people — as well as people of transgender history — definitely have in common with the LGB portion of LGBT community.
One of the biggest differences between the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. and that of the idiocy known as “transgender” is that Dr. King did not attempt change at the expense of others. Dr. King, for example, did not demand rights for African-Americans at the expense of Native Americans. Sandeen and his ilk, attempt to do great harm to true transsexuals. Sandeen’s silliness could very well lead to a backlash that would result in the repeal of laws allowing changes in birth certificates. There have already been moves to do this, and this just adds ammunition to those seeking such a move. The argument would be, “You see, we let those men who have sex changes get new birth certificates, and now we have men who still have their penises demanding to be called females….”
And Sandeen shows again that he has no comprehension of transsexualism. While so-called “trans women,” i.e. men in dresses, are violating social expectations of gender, that is not the case for transsexuals. While someone like Sandeen seeks to make a spectacle of himself, the rest of us seek to simply get on with our lives as women. While Sandeen dresses in gaudy, and absurd outfits, we seek to look appropriate for our place in society. Just one example of the very real differences.
Yes, sex is between the legs, and for Sandeen to claim to be a female (i.e. to claim his sex is female, which is what is indicated on a birth certificate, is a fraud) but, at the same time, while what some call gender is between the ears, for Sandeen to claim to be a woman, to have a female gender, is also a fraud. Sandeen is a man who likes pretending to be a woman. He shows no indications of being a woman in terms of gender. His behavior is that of a man playing dress up.
Now, the bottom line is this. If one is truly transsexual, then one should, and will behave as a female, period. That includes accepting that, if one is lesbian, that one is not legally allowed to marry another woman in a majority of states. The solution is the same as for any other lesbian, either work to change the law, or get married in a state that allows same-sex marriage. Taking advantage of their male privilege and claiming to be a male for the purpose of marriage is simply denying the veracity of their claimed gender, and admitting that their “sex change” was a mistake.
And it does real harm to transsexuals, period. It does not further the cause of same-sex marriage. It is likely to anger the courts. And it could very well lead to a worse situation than currently exists. Marriage is not an absolute right. There are a number of circumstances where a person may lack a capacity to marry. For example, a person may lack to ability to understand the nature of marriage. Age is another example. Of course, Sandeen does not care what harm might result, just so he gets to put on a show.
I have been taken to task of my suppose “obsession” with Sandeen. No, I have nothing personal against him. I just object to his extremist positions, particularly in light of his tendency to make claims that he is a transsexual, that his castration was “gender confirmation surgery” (Well, it did confirm that is gender is 100% male,), and his tendency to presume to speak on behalf of transsexuals. If he admitted he is not transsexual, publicly disavowed any such claims, I would still oppose his extremist views, but I would find less reason to seek to refute him.
It’s all about context Autumn. King was fighting for civil rights so that black people were not treated like second class citizens, he wasn’t nor would he approve of a male in physical appearance changing his birth documents to female. As a matter of fact he would be outraged over the misuse of what he said to support your belief you have a right to change your birth records to female while not undergoing the accepted reconstructive surgery.
I do believe he would support same sex marriage.
Autumn you said;
“And too, you stated in your first comment in this comment thread “With all the hand wringing and legal jockeying a fraud is still a fraud and females don’t have a penis.” But, now in another comment your write “Sex is between the legs[.] Gender is between the ears.” From your second statement then, there are females who don’t conform to your first criteria. All trans women, as well as women who identify as women of transsexual history, began the transition process by not conforming to societal sex and gender norms.”
There is a difference The Transgenders misuse the term gender to equate to physical sex. Look at your driver’s license and your current birth certificate, neither of them say “Gender”, they say “Sex”.
You and the vast majority of the transgender community misuse this term you do everything you can to blur the lines between the meaning of gender and sex, the state of California knows the difference and so does every lawyer on the planet. You play word games with Sex and Gender knowing full well they don’t mean the same thing, a friend would call that a lawyer trick. You missed your calling in life you could have been another Phyllis Randolf Fry.
“The point I’m making in the initial article is that marriage equality is a trans issue because how sex is determined for those who was identified as one sex at birth, but have changed their legal sex later, makes a difference on what sex of person they can marry. And because of DOMA, trans people, as well as those of transsexual history, who’ve married an opposite sex partner in one state can be said to have married a same sex partner in another state. That means there is a Loving v. Virginia problem that trans women/women of transsexual history have a fundamental right to marry and have their marriages legally recognized across all state lines, yet trans people/women of transsexual history have entered into marriages aren’t uniformly recognized as valid in all 50 states.
”
No they are not and that is a Ninth and Tenth Amendment issue.
The Federal Government has no right to tell California who is allowed to marry and who isn’t. You have to amend the Constitution to change that, do your homework, unless you believe like some in this country do and use the Constitution to wipe yourself with and cast it aside.
Truthfully it’s unconstitutional for the Federal Government to grans privileges to married heterosexual couples that are not granted to common law couples same sex or hetero.
“And with an LGBT audience being the main audience for this piece, pointing out that this marriage equality challenge shows lesbian, gay, and bisexual people that marriage equality issues are issues trans people — as well as people of transgender history — definitely have in common with the LGB portion of LGBT community.”
I’m sorry but I regret to inform you and the LGBT audience you all are going about this the wrong way. You are excluding those who like a friend want to enter into group marriages. You are excluding people who enter into alternatives to marriage. Marriage is only one kind of contractual agreement between 2 or more people, for example there is an alternative being debated in Mexico that is a limited term marriage contract, you commit for 2 years and after that you can part ways without the mess of a divorce.
I and others who have been following the Gay Marriage soap opera are stunned at the crude heavy handed and ignorant approach taken by LGBT activists. It’s like watching a hillbilly preform brain surgery with an ice pick.
And I have to say I am not at all surprised that Sandeen has the absolute arrogance to compare himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. I am from Birmingham, AL, I saw first hand both the actions taken by Dr. King, the actions taken against Dr. King, and ultimately the changes that Dr. King helped make. Mr. Sandeen, you are NO Martin Luther King, Jr. Not even close. You are just a pompous man in a dress with delusions of grandeur.
And the only sex and gender that Meghan Sander is challenging is his own. By doing such an act, he is effectively declaring himself to be a fraud and, like so many of the transgender extremists that inflict themselves upon the world, doing harm to true transsexuals AND exercising his male privilege.
Well, I am a post-op MtF Trans woman living in the Sate of Florida. I would like to marry a man but do not know what the legality of such a marriage would be. Would I have the same rights as a heterosexual couple with inheritance rights, Spousal social securit and pension benefits, child custody, etc? Anyone have a clue?
Nikki H
That depends on what is on your birth certificate.
If your birth certificate says your Sex is female you shouldn’t have any problems.
Actually, that is a good question. There was a case a few years ago that involved a post-op FTM where the courts eventually ruled that he was not legally a male. But as best I recall, he had not had full bottom surgery. The question of an MTF with full surgery is probably an open one.
The answer to your question depends on three locations: where you were born, where you live now, and where any future challenge to your marriage’s validity may be mounted.
From the ACLU:
“Is the marriage of a post-transition transsexual to a person of a different sex legal?
It depends on where you live. Courts in Florida, Kansas, New York, Ohio and Texas have said no, explaining that what counts in those states is either the chromosomal or the birth-assigned sex. Courts in California, Maryland and New Jersey have taken a more expansive view, ruling that the post-transition sex of the transsexual spouse determines whether the marriage is valid. In states where same-sex couples can get married, this question does not arise.”
“Chromosomal Sex” is a scientific nonsense. 1 in 300 men don’t have XY chromosomes, and some women who have given birth do.
In Florida, in a judgement which allowed marriage between a post-op transsexual man and a woman, O’Brien J stated:
“The marriage law of Florida clearly provides that marriage shall take place between one man and one woman. It does not provide when such status of being a man or woman shall be determined.”
HOWEVER… The Appellate Court reversed and declared the marriage void ab initio, based on sex being set by “immutable traits determined at birth”. What these “immutable traits” are, the court did not explicitly specify, though it mentioned chromosomes.
As we now know that chromosomes are neither immutable, nor do they determine sex, this was unfortunate – and an appeal on the grounds of factual inaccuracy may succeed. Or may not.
From the Judgement:
“The controlling issue in this case is whether, as a matter of law, the Florida statutes governing marriage authorize a postoperative transsexual to marry in the reassigned sex. We conclude they do not. We agree with the Kansas, Ohio, and Texas courts in their understanding of the common meaning of male and female, as those terms are used statutorily, to refer to immutable traits determined at birth. Therefore, we also conclude that the trial court erred by declaring that Michael is male for the purpose of the marriage statutes. Whether advances in medical science support a change in the meaning commonly attributed to the terms male and female as they are used in the Florida marriage statutes is a question that raises issues of public policy that should be addressed by the legislature. Thus, the question of whether a postoperative transsexual is authorized to marry a member of their birth sex is a matter for the Florida legislature and not the Florida courts to decide. Until the Florida legislature recognizes sex-reassignment procedures and amends the marriage statutes to clarify the marital rights of a postoperative transsexual person, we must adhere to the common meaning of the statutory terms and invalidate any marriage that is not between persons of the opposite sex determined by their biological sex at birth. Therefore, we hold that the marriage in this case is void ab initio.”
The ruling is riddled with inconsistency: first, it says that sex is determined by “immutable characteristics set at birth”. Then it says that even though science has determined that chromosomes neither determine sex nor are immutable, that the “common understanding” is that they are, and that’s what counts – unless the legislature specifically provides otherwise, which it has the power to do. But hasn’t.
It’s a political judgement, not a factual one. In rejects scientific findings as irrelevant, perception is everything.
Actually, I find it amazing that someone who claims to be a “rocket scientist” would make a statement as absurd as “chromosomal sex is scientific nonsense.” Chromosomal sex is based on a simple principle…if there is a Y chromosome, then one is a male chromosomes. Period. XY, XYY, XXY, XXYY, etc. Y chromosome, then male. Now, there are rare conditions, such as complete androgen insensitivity where a person can be XY but be female otherwise, and certainly transsexuals are an exception, but in terms of chromosomes, which is just one aspect of sexual differentiation, but the primary one in the overwhelming majority of cases, a Y chromosome means male.
No, not “scientifically absurd” at all. Unlike some claims a certain, uh, “rocket scientist” has been known to make…claims that are amusing, but not remotely believable…. But that is another story.
I am messing with the laws on purpose to cause issues with the legal system.
I am also post transition, but I use my birth sex to my advantage to marry anouther woman legaly.
I am sorry that you do not aprove,…but I don’t need anyones aproval to do squat. And furthermore…there is not a damn thing any of you can do about it.
Maybe I will get lucky and they will make it so everyone can marry anyone.
You are quite correct you don’t need anybody’s approval, you are still a fraud
Like the person who quotes MLK who wasn’t around or politically aware when he fought the good fight. Context is everything.
If you use your birth sex after having reconstructive surgery to marry someone you are a fraud and you are abusing your transition.
You are no more Post operative TS than MLK was.
Here’s a hypothetical – a Bi Trans woman, legally recognised as female in her state, but whose original birth certificate says “male”, marries her boyfriend. Then goes to Texas with her girlfriend, and marries her, as she’s legally male there.
Neither state recognises the other state’s marriage validity, and under DOMA, one or the other of the marriages isn’t recognised either, so this is not bigamy. The question is – which one isn’t recognised?
That illustrates just how silly, bizarre, insane and inhuman the legal situation is.
Actually, it would still be bigamy and would open the person up to charges of perjury since in order to obtain a marriage license one is required to affirm, under oath, that one is to legally married in any other state.
All this shows is how silly, bizarre, and insane some people’s imaginations might be, but it really says nothing about the law.
Now, I favor same-sex marriage, but under current law, it is up to the individual states to determine the legality of a marriage.
Before one can be a decent Man, Woman, or someone to whom neither label is particularly accurate, one must first be a decent human being.
The experiences of Transsexuality or Intersex, or rather, the unremitting opprobrium one is exposed to by being one or the other, can lead to people being damaged.
Such people, while deserving a bit of simple human compassion, sometimes are mindlessly cruel, irrational, and hating of others. They’ve become bitter and twisted. So while we should cut them far more slack than nearly anyone else on the planet, and not criticise them overmuch, one shouldn’t put too much stock in anything they say.
To quote Suzan Cooke, and I find it hard to believe I ever would, “Why bless your little heart, Zoe.”
But seriously, I long ago ran out of patient for people who feel the need to try to subvert the concept of gender and sex. I am not going to pander to their delusion by remotely implying there might be an veracity to their claims. Nor do I have patient for people who make up bizarre, imaginary medical histories that are clearly false.
Given that Zoe doesn’t live in the US her knowledge of US law is sketchy at best. Thousands of post ops in the us have married and have experienced no challenge to their legal sex in any way shape or form..
Where problems arise involve amended birth certificates or women of operative history who ether do not revise their documentation or do not do it correctly.
There is so much lgbtee-gee propaganda designed to steer women of history the wrong direction in order to keep them marginalized and trapped in a same sex marriage paradigm when it has not been necessary for 40 years or more.
Jennifer Usher (aka Just Jennifer) : is obsessed with Autumn because Autumn is a legitimate , recognized and honored spokesperson for transgendered issues whereas Usher lives in a Tenderloin Housing Clinic shelter room and is not recognized by any trans organization ,mailing list or blog as being anything other than a royal pain in the behind.
Usher appears to be jealous of other transwomen successes and spends all her time, which is considerable since she is jobless and living in a city sponsored shelter room, putting down successful transwomen. Usher believes that transsexuality and transgenderism is a disease and thus anyone not disabled by it is a threat to her worldview.
Usher is not “stealth” as she claims as anyone can see in her public pictures ( https://picasaweb.google.com/jenniferrusherr/AllAboutMe ).
Jennifer volunteers as a newsletter at a local Church that claims to be “inclusive” ? Would her pastor at Church of the Advent of Christ the King approve of her stalking transgendered people? She lets everyone know that you are the newsletter editor there ( http://www.advent-sf.org/staff/jennifer-usher.htm ) . Would her pastor be happy that one if his staff spends her time harassing transgendered people on-line?
Lask, give it a rest…
Another brilliant tactic by HRC!
In one motion, an agent of the transsexual-hating org has both brought same-sex marriage to the forefront *and* shown that gender identity is really nothing more than a choice.
Well played, Mr Solmonese. Well played, Mr. Stabler.