Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Texas may strip away transgender marriage rights
Monday, April 25, 2011
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — 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.
“We want to be recognized as people. We want to have the same rights as all of you,” Lisa Scheps of the Transgender Education Network of Texas said at a March hearing on Williams’ bill. No one testified in favor of the legislation.
Kolkhorst, who authored the 2009 law that allowed the sex change documentation to be used in getting marriage licenses, did not respond to messages left at her office seeking comment on why she now wants to take it out.
The 2009 law originally was filed without the sex change document provision, but House records show Kolkhorst put it in as part of a lengthy amendment in the last month of the session. The changed legislation passed the House and Senate and Perry signed it into law a month later.
“It would be terrible for Texas, now that it finally caught up with the rest of the country, to take a step back,” said Shannon Minter, an attorney for the national Transgender Law and Policy Institute. He said most states allow marriages for people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Nikki Araguz was at the Capitol last week to lobby against the legislation. Her husband, a volunteer firefighter, was killed in the line of duty in July 2010 and she is being sued by her dead husband’s family over control of his $600,000 estate.
Araguz had a final sex change operation in October 2008, two months after they were married, and says her husband knew and supported her. His family argues the marriage should be voided because Araguz was born a man and same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas. A hearing is scheduled for May 13.
“This is crazy. I feel like this is a personal attack on me,” Araguz told The Associated Press. “If this bill is passed, it essentially means women like myself who have had reconstructive surgery will not be allowed to marry their heterosexual partner.”
Marry Me
Comments
3blindmice 2 years ago
I wish we could give texas back to the mexicans
asb 2 years ago
If you mean illegals, you might say so. If reads like you mean the vast majority of legal 1st and later generation Mexican decended Texans, which would make you a gross bigot. I know you're not, so you really should make the distinction.
asb 2 years ago
There are plenty of legal Mexican immigrants living in Texas that only a bigot would wish gone; that's why I suggested you make the distinction. I don't know whether or not you're a bigot, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You often imply, directly and by opinion, that you are, and that is a bit unusual for someone purporting to express intelligent views, conservative or otherwise. Bigotry is bad, hey?
3blindmice 2 years ago
actually illegals paid more in taxes last year than all corporations did. so yes I guess I would rather have the illegals paying taxes than some off/sho/r/ed us corpation getting a handout
JMO 2 years ago
Okay, this is very off-topic, but where do you get that illegals pay taxes? They don't have Social Security numbers, so they can't have properly reported income, right?
3blindmice 2 years ago
institute for taxation and economic policy. source:
nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/20/2011-04-20_undocumented_unlike_rich_pay_plenty_in_taxes.html
but most likely any link will get deleted. like all my posts suggesting a progressive tax on the wealthy. Guess the man down in little rock don't like that kind of talk
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
Progressive is nothing but socialism pure and simple. Class envy, wealth redistribution, and tearing down the successful is the mantra of the Progressive/Socialist! Look, you could tax the wealthy 100% and still only bring 800 billion into the government. With a 1.6 Trillion deficit this year alone you still have a 800 billion dollar hole! The system is un sustainable any way you slice it. We, meaning you knew it was going to happen when all the baby boomers began to retire but did nothing!
3blindmice 2 years ago
my taxes are progressive based on what I make. Why is it past 2 million there is no higher bracket? why is it that house keepers pay more in taxes than the millionaires homes they clean? The current system is flawed beyond belief. Why does the wealthy seem to think they do not owe taxes? If the wealthy paying taxes is socialism then bring it on!
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
Playing the Class envy game is what your doing. Ask your elected Representatives why there are so many loopholes in the millions of pages of tax law! Wealthy people just like you take advantage of those tax deductions why is it that when you do it is acceptable but, if someone wealthy does and pays little or no tax's something is wrong? Eliminate the deductions and have a flat, sales, or three tiers 8% 15% 25% and be done with it. Easy....everyone pays something! No free rides and ZERO tax's paid by the wealthy or the low and middle class. That sir is fair!
3blindmice 2 years ago
Here is the official tea party/republican plan
youtube.com/watch?v=Wn53QgVjyIk#t=1m22s
bluesfan13 2 years ago
You can't actually believe that a millionaire's housekeeper would pay more taxes than the millionaire themselves, can you?
I don' think you'll find any "wealthy" person who thinks they don't owe or shouldn't pay taxes. However, if I went from making $35,000 per year to a new job making $70,000 per year, I "should" pay twice the taxes, not 6 times as much.
3blindmice 2 years ago
we are talking about a progressive tax on those making millions and above. not someone making 70k. I will provide a link that compares the salary of a janitor making 30k who works for a apartment building where the average income is in excess of 1 million a year. guess who pays the most in taxes
failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/
bluesfan13 2 years ago
I'm wondering how they figure that janitor is paying 15% in payroll taxes (social security and medicare)....
What a joke of an article.
I suppose if you're going to claim that business don't pay any taxes then you might as well claim that employees pay both side of the FICA taxes.
bluesfan13 2 years ago
Ok, if you're going to argue that, then the payroll taxes on the millionaire were incorrect, unless they make well under $100,000 in wages.
bluesfan13 2 years ago
The article that 3blindmice linked to shows the $33,000 per year janitor paid $5,000 in payroll taxes (15.15%), but the $1.1 Million per year person only paid $11,000 in payroll taxes. Since payroll taxes are flat percentages up to 106,800, and the $33,000 paid 15.15%, that means that the rich person only has $73,000 in wages.
My argument was that the janitor only directly paid 7.2% (about $2,400) with his employer paying the rest of the tax.
bluesfan13 2 years ago
Oh, and a second thought here. Even in their example, the janitor does not "pay more taxes" than the millionaire. That person pays 5 times as much in taxes as the janitor makes total.
The problem with our goverment is not revenue. It's spending.
miltonwaddams 2 years ago
excuse me but I am a accountant. the problem is not spending. the problem is not taking in enough money
bluesfan13 2 years ago
So, you have no problem with the fact that taxation is 1/3 of our total GDP?
online_editor 2 years ago
It's not our policy to remove posts for that reason, but if it helps from here forward, if you believe a post has been removed for that reason, please e-mail me the specifics at news@newstribune.com so I can look into it and reply. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
Actually hkchas read F.A. Hyack, look at the writing of Woodrow Wilson and the progressives of the 20's. They clearly stated that Socialism is a bad word in America and that Progressive Policy is more palatable to the Average American. And, Conservative is nothing like Facism/Nazism. Facism is more about picking winners and losers like Obama care granting 2000 waivers to McDonalds the labor unions, to opt out of Obama care at the expense of small and mid sized business's and indivduals who believe in limited government, personal freedom to choose and that the best government is that which is closest to the people as Conservatives believe.
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
Yes, as a conservative I do dislike Woodrow Wilson and his progressive/socialist policies learned not from working or any entreprenurial pursuits but from being an academic who dreamed of a anti-capitalist politburo style of centralized government control of the masses. Who also believed that education was for the general public and advocated government public schools new for the time, but to only educate the common man so that he could perform in the factory with a general knowledge and would not question the governments authority over his life. No I don't like Woodrow Wilson!
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
hkchas read the following and tell me you do not believe most of it. And, if you don't tell me what you don't agree with.
We believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
We believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
We believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
We believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
We believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
We believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
We believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
We believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
JMO 2 years ago
Well, you didn't ask me...but it all sounds pretty nice really. I'm curious as to what anyone would think is bad about any of that?
asb 2 years ago
The Tea Party manifesto. Generally acceptable high-minded guide to people being good, America being great, and government being . . . oops, here's the part I find some fault with. The call for constant tax reduction (if applied each day at noon we'd be totally unfunded before long), de-centralization of government function, and that less government is preferred enough to be in a manifesto; all seem too aimed at getting rid of government. I think a sound government, well watched and well funded, promotes personal responsibility and social equity. I'd add language about all of us paying, all of us participating, and all of us accepting each other, like the first item implies. Not much wrong with these beliefs, but they overly emphasize the need to reduce and de-fund the government, which I realize is the core of the Teaparty, and which is why I consider them narrow and ultimately against proper government. This manifesto expresses how the Tea Party is a populist organ for the business community, not a marriage likely to last.
miltonwaddams 2 years ago
they propose to take 2.2T and to give it to corporations. this was also called trickle down. this policy has failed for the last 30 years and highly doubt it will work this time around. now please give me my stapler back!
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
How's it going Milton..... yeah now I need you to move all your stuff all the way to the back. Oh and yeah am going to need this stapler yeah.
JMO 2 years ago
Hmmm. Then, not so much what it says as how it works, or doesn't, in the real world. Kinda like communism...It SOUNDS great in principle, but doesn't work in practice.
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
No "asb" it is not the Tea Party Manifesto nice try. It is the founding principles of the Republican party in 1856 but thanks for your somewhat positive attitude to the fundamental principles.
miltonwaddams 2 years ago
as a account I have studie this plan in detail. they propose to defund medicare and social security and make it a voucher system. wall street would reap big dollars from this plan. and I said no salt on my margarita. no salt!
asb 2 years ago
. . . but last time I didn't get any cake . . .
miltonwaddams 2 years ago
The ratio of people to cake is too big.
asb 2 years ago
We need a cake/stapler tax on the bosses to pay for pastry and red swinglines for the dufuses among us
rmsberengaria 2 years ago
Social Security is a ponzie scheme and as an accountant you should know that it needs reformed not eliminated and as an accountant you also are well aware through ups and downs the Stock market over time will return 8%. There is nothing wrong with younger folks having the ability to invest a portion of their money in secure investments other than government fiat securities. and where's my paycheck I didn't get my paycheck!
wcywing 2 years ago
how does any of this relate to the subject of this article?
asb 2 years ago
We have wandered a bit . . . but the extremists on the right in these threads would applaud Texas sticking its nose in the private parts of a marriage but stay out of the naughty bits of a trillion dollar corporation's activities and tax dodging. This is hypocrisay..
wcywing 2 years ago
why can't the government leave people alone. especially if they are not hurting anyone? btw i am not democrat or republican.
wcywing 2 years ago
it seems to be, now i could be wrong but, Right wingers want lower taxes, pro-business but are socially conservative.
Left wingers want higer taxes, more speding, regs, but are socially liberal.
both want to control society, just in different ways.
soxfan 2 years ago
this country is really getting out of wack
don l chicago
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID