• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas mom challenges transgender widow's marriage

Any documentation to this effect? I've never heard of this "law".

It's different from state to state, but I'm pretty sure all states allow you to change your gender on all your legal documents with atleast SRS. I know that passports don't require SRS to change your gender anymore. The fact is that marriage as it is now, is a heterosexual institution, and the fact that she was able to get married proves that she was legally a female, because her legal documents had a F on them. It would be quite hypocritical for Texas to go back on that now.
 
Austin_Powers.jpg


It's a man, baby!

If you want to take the "state by state" route (which conflicts with your previous argument when you started tossing around the word "federal"), it's been shown that Texas does not recognize this, and that it goes by status at birth. This means that it would be considered a homosexual union, which de facto removed the enforcability of this contract, making it unilaterally voidable.

You defend your hyper-liberal girlie argument. I'll use the law. We'll see who stands at the end of the day.
 
It's a man, baby!

If you want to take the "state by state" route (which conflicts with your previous argument when you started tossing around the word "federal"), it's been shown that Texas does not recognize this, and that it goes by status at birth. This means that it would be considered a homosexual union, which de facto removed the enforcability of this contract, making it unilaterally voidable.

You defend your hyper-liberal girlie argument. I'll use the law. We'll see who stands at the end of the day.

First off passports are a federal thing, and gender on passports can be changed, even without SRS. So there is a federal precedent.
Secondly, if the state of Texas issued her a drivers license, and/or changed her birth certificate with a F on it, by voiding this marriage they are going back on their own recognition of her gender. If she was able to enter, this marriage then she had to have legal documentation of her being who she is, and of her being female. The fact that she was able to get married solidifies that her gender is recognized by the state, and legally she is female.
 
All it shows is that she defrauded the government and should be prosecuted.
 
All it shows is that she defrauded the government and should be prosecuted.

If the state of Texas issued her documentation stating that she is female how is she defrauding the government?
 
Um, because she asked the state of Texas for documentation stating that she's female when she's not?

Did you really just ask me that question?

Fooling a civil service worker isn't exactly difficult. I could get a Social Security card for a Jacques Strap in two weeks if I so felt like it.
 
Um, because she asked the state of Texas for documentation stating that she's female when she's not?

Did you really just ask me that question?

Fooling a civil service worker isn't exactly difficult. I could get a Social Security card for a Jacques Strap in two weeks if I so felt like it.

No, she's female. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. It's not like she went out, and just asked for new documentation, and they put a F on it because she looked female. The state changed it from M to F, which is evidence that the state recognizes her gender, and that legally she is female.
 
Aren't you just the cutest little thing. You actually believe that government workers are so smart and fool-proof.

That's darling.
 
Aren't you just the cutest little thing. You actually believe that government workers are so smart and fool-proof.

That's darling.

Actually in Texas you have to have a court order to change your gender on legal documents. So this isn't an issue that you can use the "bad government workers" defense. If she had legal documentation stating that she is female, than she is female in the eyes of the law.
 
Ok, this makes my head hurt. If the state has a documentation process to legally change your gender, so be it. Honestly couldn't care.

Still doesn't change the premise that the marriage was based upon fraud, and that he should have legal discourse to prevent her from getting one red cent.

All this does is make me want to get married, cheat on my wife incessantly, and tell her to "deal with it, bitch".
 
Ok, this makes my head hurt. If the state has a documentation process to legally change your gender, so be it. Honestly couldn't care.

Still doesn't change the premise that the marriage was based upon fraud, and that he should have legal discourse to prevent her from getting one red cent.

All this does is make me want to get married, cheat on my wife incessantly, and tell her to "deal with it, bitch".

The marriage wasn't based on fraud, it was between a man, and a woman. Plain, and simple, it doesn't matter if you don't recognize her as a woman, the state does, and didn't stop her from getting married. The mothers lawsuit is baseless, and should be shot down.
 
Once again, the one true crime is the institute of marriage. Or at least the ignorance of getting a pre-nup. A woman shouldn't get half your stuff whether you cheated on her, she's really a dude, or she just wouldn't give you the threesome.

Maybe he needs to lose half his crap. He won't make that mistake again.
 
The mom is just greedy.
 
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Have fun getting arrested, as far as I know, you need to have SRS, or be living in your chosen gender for over a year, with a therapist recommendation to qualify to have your legal documents changed. And if she was able to get married, then by law she is recognized as a female.

I currently am working with someone who is transgendered and considering SRS. From what I know, what you stated above is accurate. Since she has not gone through any changes as of yet, I am not completely up on the laws, but I have lots of resources at my disposal, and I will try to find out. As far as I know, legally, once SRS has been completed, she would be a female, and regardless of what Texas thinks, federal statutes on this would prevail... as they should. I will look more into this, however.

Also, the husband's lack of knowledge of her sex-change status is irrelevant. If she had been a prostitute and had not disclosed that prior to her marriage, that would not be considered fraud.
 
Last edited:
Once again, the one true crime is the institute of marriage. Or at least the ignorance of getting a pre-nup. A woman shouldn't get half your stuff whether you cheated on her, she's really a dude, or she just wouldn't give you the threesome.

Maybe he needs to lose half his crap. He won't make that mistake again.

Um, the husband died, and the mom is trying to get his estate, in which she has no right too.
And the whole argument against marriage has nothing to do with this issue, and is a completely different argument. You really are grasping at straws here aren't you?
 
I currently am working with someone who is transgendered and considering SRS. From what I know, what you stated above is accurate. Since she has not gone through any changes as of yet, I am not completely up on the laws, but I have lots of resources at my disposal, and I will try to find out. As far as I know, legally, once SRS has been completed, she would be a female, and regardless of what Texas thinks, federal statutes on this would prevail... as they should. I will look more into this, however.

Also, the husband's lack of knowledge of her sex-change status is irrelevant. If she had been a prostitute and had not disclosed that prior to her marriage, that would not be considered fraud.

I was thinking that too. Even if Texas wants to try and push a specific view as being correct, this case will just make it to SCOTUS and be tossed out. The mother is going for money and is relying on the system's prejudice against the transgendered to get it.

Money makes people act so immorally.
 
Time for a Captain America dance break y'all.




...........................
 
Last edited:
Wow - poor guy. . . dead and now his family's bickering.

I don't imagine how someone can contest a marriage that was already made official BY the state.
 
The question is not whether a post-operative transsexual should be allowed to marry a man; clearly I believe she should.
The question is, how will the court rule in this case?

Existing legal precedent:

Marriage

Marriages between gender-conflicted and non-gender-conflicted fall into three categories: (1) Marriages between two persons of the same sex (preoperative marriage); (2) Marriages between a person of one sex and a person of the opposite sex who was formerly of the same sex (postoperative marriage); and (3) marriages between two persons of the opposite sex, one of whom subsequently became a member of the same sex.

Preoperative Marriage: Marriage contracted by preoperative gender-conflicted

individuals are clearly considered invalid: the law making no provision for

a marriage between persons of the same sex. The reported cases have unanimously rejected claims by parties involved in same sex marriages.

In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied efforts by two males to obtain a marriage license, reasoning in part that "[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." Further, the Court ruled that such denial did not violate the plaintiffs' First amendment right to freedom of religion, their Eighth amendment right

not to be cruelly and unusually punished, their Ninth amendment right to

privacy, nor their Fourteenth amendment right to equal protection and due process. The same issues were subsequently raised and rejected by other courts in Jones v. Hallihan and Singer v. Hara.

In Anonymous v. Anonymous, a marriage contract was entered into by two males, one of whom thought the other was female. Upon attempting to consummate the marriage, the unsuspecting male discovered the true sex of the other.

Shortly thereafter he was transferred overseas. In the meantime, the second male underwent sex reassignment. The first male sued for a declaration as to the status of the marriage. The New York Supreme Court declared that the marriage ceremony had not in fact created a valid marriage, noting that "[w]hat happened to the [second male] after the marriage ceremony is irrelevant, since the parties never lived together." Postoperative Marriage: The issue of whether a marriage is legal when one of the parties has changed his or her when one of the parties has changed his or her sex before the marriage ceremony appears to present more of a problem for the courts. The validity of a postoperative marriage hinges on many factors, as do all marriages; for example, fraud and absence of consummation.

Early case law (pre-1975) clearly considered all transsexual marriages to be invalid. In Francis B. v. Mark B., the husband had undergone operations for mastectomy and hysterectomy, and was undergoing hormonal therapy at the time of the marriage. During attempted consummation the wife discovered that the husband was without a penis and could not perform sexually. The wife brought suit for an annulment on the ground that the husband was a female, wherein the husband brought a cross-suit for divorce. The court ruled that the husband could not succeed on a suit for divorce because there had been no valid marriage to begin with. "While the inability to consummate the marriage would have been enough to justify the annulment, the defendant was in fact a woman," thus invalidating the marriage.

On the other hand, in M. T. v. J. T., the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously declared in 1976 that an individual who changes sex through surgery is entitled to all the legal rights enjoyed by others of the same sex, including marriage. The court rejected previous decisions in this country and abroad, in which a person's sex was determined solely by his or her chromosomes or designated sex at birth. The court ruled that "f the anatomical or genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person's gender, psyche, or psychological sex, then identity must be governed by the congruence of these standards." Therefore, at least in New Jersey, a marriage between a postoperative transsexual and a person of the opposite sex is valid as long as the transsexual tells the partner in advance about his or her sex reassignment.

The controversy continues, however. In In re Ladrach, reported upon by Jan Elliot, a postoperative male-to-female transsexual sought to marry a genetic male. Noting [incorrectly] that only Arizona, Louisiana, and Illinois statutorily permit changing sex on a birth certificate, although another twelve permit such change without statute, the court held that it could not alter the birth certificate of the transsexual without statutory authority and accordingly the transsexual could not lawfully marry a man.


Transgender Support Site Home Page

The answer seems to be, it depends upon what State they live in; I do not think that Texas has yet faced this issue, and what they will do with it remains to be seen.
 
The wife should absolutely lose. Marriage is a contract, and when you lie about your gender you make the contract unilaterally voidable.

In fact, I'd support him if he decided to sue.

Dude he is DEAD! Last time I checked? A corpse cannot sue someone.

Anyways I think his kids should get all asstes, monies, etc. unless she can totally prove that he knew about this long before his Death.

If she cannot prove it? She really should not get ****. She comes off to me as shady anyways. There is something about her that I do not like.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, my bad. If a guy was alive and in a similar situation, I would hope he sues.
 
Legally she can be called a woman but if you are born with a penis you are a transgendered female. You just cannot completely ignore that fact. It is ridiculous that she didn't share such a really important detail with the one she married. We marry people to share our burdens. I think he had a right to know. She perpetrated a fraud pure and simple. If it can be proved that he left her after finding out about it I don't think she should get the money.
 
Legally she can be called a woman but if you are born with a penis you are a transgendered female. You just cannot completely ignore that fact. It is ridiculous that she didn't share such a really important detail with the one she married. We marry people to share our burdens. I think he had a right to know. She perpetrated a fraud pure and simple. If it can be proved that he left her after finding out about it I don't think she should get the money.

How do we know she didn't? It is her word against her mother-in-law's word at the moment. Where is the mother's proof that her son didn't know about his wife being born a man? If the mother has proof that her son didn't know his wife is transgendered, then I'd say she has a good case. But she is the one that should have to provide proof that the transgendered wife was committing fraud, not the other way around.
 
How do we know she didn't? It is her word against her mother-in-law's word at the moment. Where is the mother's proof that her son didn't know about his wife being born a man? If the mother has proof that her son didn't know his wife is transgendered, then I'd say she has a good case. But she is the one that should have to provide proof that the transgendered wife was committing fraud, not the other way around.

This, what is more likely is that the mother never approved of their marriage, and now is trying to get the marriage void to "save" her sons reputation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom