As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Texas may strip away transgender marriage rights

ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
edited May 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
From Yahoo News
AUSTIN, Texas – Two years after Texas became one of the last states to allow transgendered people to use proof of their sex change to get a marriage license, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock.
Advocates for the transgendered say a proposal to bar transgendered people from getting married smacks of discrimination and would put their legally granted marriages in danger of being nullified if challenged in court.
One of the Republican sponsors of the legislation said he's simply trying to clean up the 2009 law in a state that bans same-sex marriage under the constitution.
"The Texas Constitution," Sen. Tommy Williams said, "clearly defines marriage between one man and one woman."
The legislation by Williams, of Houston, and Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, of Brenham, would prohibit county and district clerks from using a court order recognizing a sex change as documentation to get married, effectively requiring the state to recognize a 1999 state appeals court decision that said in cases of marriage, gender is assigned at birth and sticks with a person throughout their life even if they have a sex change.
Most states allow transgendered people to get married using a court order that also allows them to change their driver's license, experts said. Some advocates for the transgendered say the Texas proposal would not only prevent future transgendered marriages but also open up the possibility that any current marriage could be nullified.
"It appears the goal is to try to enshrine a really horrifying ruling and making it law in the state of Texas," said John Nechman, a Houston attorney whose law firm does work for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community.
Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.
"The governor has always believed and advocated that marriage is between a man and a woman," Miner said.
Williams said he understands that some people's gender cannot easily be determined when they are born and they later have an operation that could change the originally assigned gender.
"It is an emotional issue," Williams said. "I can appreciate that."
But when asked about claims of discrimination, Williams insisted his goal is to simplify marriage licensing for clerks who are trying to balance the 2009 law with the 1999 Texas appeals court ruling.
"They shouldn't have to resolve these issues," Williams said. "We have confused them."
Williams' legislation has cleared a committee vote and now awaits approval by the full Senate, which is predominantly Republican. The version in the GOP-dominated House has not yet been given a hearing.
Some advocates for the transgendered say that even if the legislation is passed, transgendered people could still get marriage licenses using other state and federally-issued documents such as a drivers' license or passport. But without the weight of a court order officially recognizing their gender reassignment, they worry any legal challenge, such as a divorce or estate dispute, would nullify the marriage.
It may also have the unintended consequence of making some gay marriages perfectly legal - the ones between a FTM-man and a man as well as between MTF-women and women.

I wonder if they thought this through.

Shanadeus on
«134

Posts

  • Options
    never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Really? Really? "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." They are a man and a woman. They're transgendered you asshole.

    never die on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    It may also have the unintended consequence of making some gay marriages perfectly legal - the ones between a FTM-man and a man as well as between MTF-women and women.

    Yep. I find that darkly funny.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    But when asked about claims of discrimination, Williams insisted his goal is to simplify marriage licensing for clerks who are trying to balance the 2009 law with the 1999 Texas appeals court ruling.
    This sounds like one of those BS excuses. Do any actual clerks have any real problem with it?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    It may also have the unintended consequence of making some gay marriages perfectly legal - the ones between a FTM-man and a man as well as between MTF-women and women.

    Yep. I find that darkly funny.

    Wait, I must have missed it, how does it do that? Cause that would be hilarious.

    never die on
  • Options
    dojangodojango Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    never die wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    It may also have the unintended consequence of making some gay marriages perfectly legal - the ones between a FTM-man and a man as well as between MTF-women and women.

    Yep. I find that darkly funny.

    Wait, I must have missed it, how does it do that? Cause that would be hilarious.

    If the law allows the clerk to refuse to recognize a court order that says that "dude X is now lady X" then Lady X could still hypothetically marry Lady Y since she's still officially a man as far as that particular clerk is concerned.

    dojango on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited April 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    It may also have the unintended consequence of making some gay marriages perfectly legal - the ones between a FTM-man and a man as well as between MTF-women and women.

    Yep. I find that darkly funny.

    Wait, I must have missed it, how does it do that? Cause that would be hilarious.

    If the law allows the clerk to refuse to recognize a court order that says that "dude X is now lady X" then Lady X could still hypothetically marry Lady Y since she's still officially a man as far as that particular clerk is concerned.

    But it's ok, because that situation is less confusing than being handed a doctor's certificate saying "Lady X is a lady."

    So we're just making it easier on the clerks, clearly.

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    What makes this shit even more fun is when one state recognizes gender change and another does not, making the marriage legal in one state but unrecognized in another.

    Whee. :rotate:

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    But when asked about claims of discrimination, Williams insisted his goal is to simplify marriage licensing for clerks who are trying to balance the 2009 law with the 1999 Texas appeals court ruling.
    This sounds like one of those BS excuses. Do any actual clerks have any real problem with it?

    I'm sure some do. That doesn't mean the rest of us should give a shit about their objections.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    dojangodojango Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    What makes this shit even more fun is when one state recognizes gender change and another does not, making the marriage legal in one state but unrecognized in another.

    Whee. :rotate:

    Hah, I guess although the constitution requires a state to recognize another state's court rulings, it says nothing about requiring a state to accept its own court's rulings.

    dojango on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    im not of the mind that convenience should be the primary focus when discussing someone's civil rights

    override367 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    But when asked about claims of discrimination, Williams insisted his goal is to simplify marriage licensing for clerks who are trying to balance the 2009 law with the 1999 Texas appeals court ruling.
    This sounds like one of those BS excuses. Do any actual clerks have any real problem with it?

    I'm sure some do. That doesn't mean the rest of us should give a shit about their objections.

    I don't mean on a personal level. I mean whether they actually have any practical problems following the laws and whether anything actually needs to be simplified.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    We must really have nothing better going on here in Texas if our senators are wasting so much time with utter bullshit. Hold on, I'll check.



    Uhhh . . .
    - rampant wildfires everywhere
    - medicare costs spiraling out of control
    - housing market in the shitter
    - drug-related border violence, like, every minute
    - board of education acting totally insane



    Sounds about right.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    Robman on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    It's on fire.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.
    "The governor has always believed and advocated that marriage is between a man and a woman," Miner said.

    Governor Rick Perry publicly prayed for rain over Easter weekend to end droughts all across Texas. There was no rain. God does not favor Rick Perry.

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    It's on fire.

    In our defense, the fires are mostly ravaging the shitty and ugly parts.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    It's on fire.

    Does this mean Texas has sunk one ring closer to hell?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ethicalseanethicalsean Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    It's on fire.

    Does this mean Texas has sunk one ring closer to hell?

    Does that happen when you elect a non-Christian as Speaker of the House?

    ethicalsean on
  • Options
    FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Then this must be an attempt to tame God's wrath, however foolish that sounds.

    Fireflash on
    PSN: PatParadize
    Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
    Steam Friend code: 45386507
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Texas continues to be spectacularly full of shit.

    Sure does have some lovely countryside though

    It's on fire.

    Yes, it does that every now and then. It's semi-desert scrubland.

    You should check out the fires in BC some time. They make scrubfires look like little bitch fires. It's funny to look out your window and see an entire fucking mountain on fire.

    Robman on
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    We must really have nothing better going on here in Texas if our senators are wasting so much time with utter bullshit. Hold on, I'll check.



    Uhhh . . .
    - rampant wildfires everywhere
    - medicare costs spiraling out of control
    - housing market in the shitter
    - drug-related border violence, like, every minute
    - board of education acting totally insane



    Sounds about right.

    The Ledge doesn't have a huge amount of control over the Board of Ed. They can attempt to pass a law gaining a measure of control over the Permanent Fund but there are some issues with that and the Texas Constitution.

    But truly this is one of the most retarded things I can think of the Ledge doing.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    This is somehow Wisconsin's fault. If they hadn't tried to out-crazy Texas, I'm sure none of this would have come up.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • Options
    ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Buttcleft on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Let us test that theory. Which of the following is least believable:

    1. Republicans take over Public Park to replace with Country Club Golf Course
    2. Republican makes it illegal to receive Medicaid. Must still pay tax though.
    3. GOP Speaker of the House: "Voting is a privilege, not a right."
    4. Republican amendment to 9/11 Bill requires first responders to register with Terrorist Watch list.
    5. GOP Governor Plans to Privatize State Employee's Health Insurance Because it's running a Surplus
    6. GOP Senator Opposes Cuts to Planned Parenthood. "Why aren't we this concerned AFTER children are born?"

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    You should note that they're not necessarily federal, I forget which Speaker that was.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Let us test that theory. Which of the following is least believable:

    1. Republicans take over Public Park to replace with Country Club Golf Course
    2. Republican makes it illegal to receive Medicaid. Must still pay tax though.
    3. GOP Speaker of the House: "Voting is a privilege, not a right."
    4. Republican amendment to 9/11 Bill requires first responders to register with Terrorist Watch list.
    5. GOP Governor Plans to Privatize State Employee's Health Insurance Because it's running a Surplus
    6. GOP Senator Opposes Cuts to Planned Parenthood. "Why aren't we this concerned AFTER children are born?"

    6 but it's true.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Let us test that theory. Which of the following is least believable:

    1. Republicans take over Public Park to replace with Country Club Golf Course
    2. Republican makes it illegal to receive Medicaid. Must still pay tax though.
    3. GOP Speaker of the House: "Voting is a privilege, not a right."
    4. Republican amendment to 9/11 Bill requires first responders to register with Terrorist Watch list.
    5. GOP Governor Plans to Privatize State Employee's Health Insurance Because it's running a Surplus
    6. GOP Senator Opposes Cuts to Planned Parenthood. "Why aren't we this concerned AFTER children are born?"

    6 but it's true.

    Sadly, I think all of those are true.
    1- Benton Harbor, MI
    2- Pretty sure it's Idaho
    3- Pretty sure that's been floating around the past few days
    4- Yeah, that happened.
    5- Louisiana. And you all thought Jindal just disappeared after his horribad State of the Union response.

    adventfalls on
    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Let us test that theory. Which of the following is least believable:

    1. Republicans take over Public Park to replace with Country Club Golf Course
    2. Republican makes it illegal to receive Medicaid. Must still pay tax though.
    3. GOP Speaker of the House: "Voting is a privilege, not a right."
    4. Republican amendment to 9/11 Bill requires first responders to register with Terrorist Watch list.
    5. GOP Governor Plans to Privatize State Employee's Health Insurance Because it's running a Surplus
    6. GOP Senator Opposes Cuts to Planned Parenthood. "Why aren't we this concerned AFTER children are born?"

    6 but it's true.

    Sadly, I think all of those are true.
    1- Benton Harbor, MI
    2- Pretty sure it's Idaho
    3- Pretty sure that's been floating around the past few days
    4- Yeah, that happened.
    5- Louisiana. And you all thought Jindal just disappeared after his horribad State of the Union response.

    I'll be honest. I thought I was making the first one up. Goonies is on downstairs.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Its pretty much gotten to the point where anything crazy you hear suddenly becomes 100% believable if the story involves the republicans.

    Let us test that theory. Which of the following is least believable:

    1. Republicans take over Public Park to replace with Country Club Golf Course
    2. Republican makes it illegal to receive Medicaid. Must still pay tax though.
    3. GOP Speaker of the House: "Voting is a privilege, not a right."
    4. Republican amendment to 9/11 Bill requires first responders to register with Terrorist Watch list.
    5. GOP Governor Plans to Privatize State Employee's Health Insurance Because it's running a Surplus
    6. GOP Senator Opposes Cuts to Planned Parenthood. "Why aren't we this concerned AFTER children are born?"

    6 but it's true.

    Sadly, I think all of those are true.
    1- Benton Harbor, MI
    2- Pretty sure it's Idaho
    3- Pretty sure that's been floating around the past few days
    4- Yeah, that happened.
    5- Louisiana. And you all thought Jindal just disappeared after his horribad State of the Union response.

    I'll be honest. I thought I was making the first one up. Goonies is on downstairs.

    The Republican Party- fucking the corpse of Poe's Law since 2007.

    adventfalls on
    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • Options
    Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Options
    ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    Of course they will.
    Hopefully some inquisitive journalist will ask him of these scenarios and see what his reaction is.

    Shanadeus on
  • Options
    Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    Well... they could just get it over with and require heterosexual vaginal sex to be publicly performed for the clerk to issue the license. I mean that is all that counts. The bits. Natural ones of course.

    Void Slayer on
    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • Options
    Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Robot Girl Mimiga VillageRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    And lest we forget this reaches clusterfuck to the nth power when we consider intersex people. This disenfranchises them badly too.

    Also, if memory serves there WERE a few gay marriages in states which have same sex marriage bans because one partner was transgender and the state refused to let them change their birth certificate, even post-op.

    Curly_Brace on
  • Options
    never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    From Yahoo News
    Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.


    I was re-reading the article and this just sunk in. So essentially Gov. Perry is incompetent, and/or doesn't read the bills he signs?

    never die on
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    never die wrote: »
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    From Yahoo News
    Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.


    I was re-reading the article and this just sunk in. So essentially Gov. Perry is incompetent, and/or doesn't read the bills he signs?

    And. Governor Good Hair isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    never die wrote: »
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    From Yahoo News
    Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.


    I was re-reading the article and this just sunk in. So essentially Gov. Perry is incompetent, and/or doesn't read the bills he signs?

    Have you read the law and identified whether it should have been clear? I haven't, but certainly, laws with unintended consequences are passed all over the country.

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited April 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    And lest we forget this reaches clusterfuck to the nth power when we consider intersex people. This disenfranchises them badly too.

    Does it? I was under the impression that in most places, intersexed people were the only people who were allowed to get their sexes changed on birth certificates.

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    John is born a male. Undergoes sex change operation to become Jane.
    Jane wants to marry Alice. Texas still considers Jane to be a man. Therefore, under Texas law, the marriage is legal.

    It just makes a clusterfucky situation even more clusterfucky.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason to make this illegal too.

    And lest we forget this reaches clusterfuck to the nth power when we consider intersex people. This disenfranchises them badly too.

    Does it? I was under the impression that in most places, intersexed people were the only people who were allowed to get their sexes changed on birth certificates.

    It depends on the state and document. Some states simply require a doctor's note saying they are receiving clinical treatment. The same goes for changing gender on a passport. Other states require surgery but tend to be very vague about what that surgery may be. There are is a lawsuit pending in New York to try to have their law changed from surgery to clinical treatment.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Septus wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    From Yahoo News
    Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.


    I was re-reading the article and this just sunk in. So essentially Gov. Perry is incompetent, and/or doesn't read the bills he signs?

    Have you read the law and identified whether it should have been clear? I haven't, but certainly, laws with unintended consequences are passed all over the country.

    Does anyone else read that as the spokesman coming out and saying, roughly, "Any appearance of inclusiveness or non-prejudice is purely accidental. We would like to assure the people of Texas that Governor Perry is just as homophobic as they are."?

    Just me? Okay, nevermind.

    Taramoor on
Sign In or Register to comment.