Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The opinion marks the first time in Texas a court has recognized that transgender people have the right to marry.
In a landmark opinion, the 13th District Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi reverses the 2011 ruling by a Houston judge, who ruled that Araguz was born male and that Texas’ 2005 marriage amendment doesn’t recognize her marriage to a man.
Nikki Araguz’ husband Thomas Araguz was a volunteer firefighter and was killed in the line of duty in 2010.
Nikki Araguz was denied his death benefits after her late husband’s family filed suit claiming that since Nikki was born male, she was not female at the time of her marriage to Thomas and that the marriage should be invalidated, and denied spousal benefits she would have been granted.
On May 26, 2011, State District Judge Randy Clapp ruled in favor of Thomas’ family and nullified the marriage.
Houston attorney Kent Rutter, the lead attorney for the appeal, said the opinion marks the first time in Texas a court has recognized that trans people have the right to marry.
Meanwhile, the dead firefighter's young children from his first marriage don't appear, from the articles I've read, to get a portion of his death benefits.
The firefighter's transgender widow, who has now legally won the substantial death benefit, has already remarried. I wonder if she will share the money with her dead husband's kids?
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-13-2014 at 01:16 PM..
Meanwhile, the dead firefighter's young children from his first marriage don't appear, from the articles I've read, to get a portion of his death benefits.
The firefighter's transgender widow, who has now legally won the substantial death benefit, has already remarried. I wonder if she will share the money with her dead husband's kids?
It was the responsibility of the father to provide for his children upon his death. If he chose not to, then that was on him...not the second wife or first husband.
This decision doesn't award the benefits to Nikki Araguz. It gives her another trial. The judge has opened the door for transgenders to argue that the therapies and reassignment surgeries they undergo effectively change their gender. The original court ruled that born a man, always a man. This court is saying that Araguz should be able to argue differently. After all, if a child is born with genitalia of both genders, the child is not forever labeled hermaphrodite. A choice is made, and science is used to reinforce that choice. If the state accepts that gender can be reversed, reassigned by science in those cases, what are the grounds for the state denying that gender can be reversed/reassigned in other cases?
Oh my. Texas now, too? It's kind of funny. I think everyone's SSM rollout map had the blue states going first. But lately, its been the red ones (Utah, Oklahoma, Texas?, Arizona?) that are falling like dominoes thanks to court challenges to their anti-gay laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
