Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[Soon]

I was just reading the comments on Queerty about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefigh...#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case:

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (Houston based)

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I was just reading the comments on Queerty about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefigh...#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case:

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (Houston based)

Her marriage was legal in the state of TX when she was married. Her surgery has nothing to do with her legal status as female. Her birth certificate had been changed...as had her other documentation.

Both she and the marriage were legal according to TX law.

This is something TX does a lot to transpeople. They give you legal status as the gender you are...but you have to 'behave'.

The Littleton case is a ridiculous case, and frankly it's too deep for me to get into here.

Also, about the husband's family saying this is 'for the children'. They're original petition for the injunction says NOTHING about the children. Additionally, they're not ONLY fighting for the widow benefits rightly due Nikki; they want the ENTIRE estate. All 600,000$ of the estate she's built with her husband. She was also the primary breadwinner. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. Three weeks ago, the husband's parents were taking the ex wife to court and smearing her name, in the custody battle. Now, they are siding with the ex wife to get the house, property, bank accounts, etc. The family also didn't make this 'all about the children' until yesterday when it was brought up in court.

On top of that, they've frozen a separate life insurance policy the husband took out in which he SPECIFICALLY named Nikki the beneficiary. This woman is living strictly on donations.

Here's a youtube of what's REALLY going on...as opposed to what the media is representing



Also, here's the transphobic interview that was conducted by a local television station. Be forewarned, this interview is extremely transphobic, and it was very difficult for me (personally) to watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id...dicate&section


This woman needs support right now. She needs financial support, and community support.

TransTexans are going to be greatly impacted by what happens with this case. This is extremely important to all transpeople in this state. The Littleton case has been used against us in a number of ways (not limited to marriage). It has even been used to deny us simple things like name changes.

The Texas Legislature came back after Littleton and in direct response to Littleton with amendments to Texas Family Code that allowed transpeople to use amended birth certificates and other documentation...because the Littleton ruling was so ridiculous.

Also, when the media states the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Littleton case, they are LYING. The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

To recap. This marriage was LEGAL in the state of Texas according to Texas Family Code. She was also LEGALLY female when they were married. "The" surgery <gag> is NOT a precursor to having your b.c. changed and/or SSA, DL, etc.

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

But we DON'T live in a perfect world. We live in the here and now, and this woman doesn't need is more pontificating and theorizing about her life. This is happening NOW...with the laws enacted NOW.

She needs support...as does the entire Texas trans community. This is a case that is going to have LONG lasting impacts on our actual LIVED lives RIGHT NOW.

Please help with support and listening...and please realize that what you're hearing on the major media is HIGHLY biased.


Dylan

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when Ms. Araguz's assets have been frozen and her in-laws are fighting for all of her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when all of this woman's assets have been frozen and are fighting for her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

[Soon]

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.

Yeah, you're legally whatever gender you say you are, and you can get married. BUT the second there's some kind of issue (inheritance, etc), they strip it all from you (legal status, marriage, etc).

The reason for this is because Littleton was such a ridiculous ruling. It was just absolutely ridiculous...to the point that the TX legislature, judges, etc knew it was ridiculous, so they responded. They responded by making TONS of changes to Texas Family Code, Texas Safety Code, and a few other places. The laws they made in direct response to Littleton granted rights to transpeople and made things like gender marker changes, marriage licenses, name changes, etc EASIER. Basically, whatever they could do to loosen up the laws, they did it.

A LOT of things in the state of Texas are based STRICTLY on the individual judge's decision. So, if you get a decent judge, there's actual statute law that *may* help out transpeople. However, if you get some shitstick, hillbilly judge...they can rely on Littleton (and they will pull it out for ANY damned thing they wish when it comes to transpeople).

Littleton states you are what your chromosomes say you are...except NO ONE gets a chromosome test. Littleton is complex because it steps over itself constantly. It says one thing in one part, and another thing in another part.

You can get a better idea of the how the laws are fucked up here in the Great State O' if you click here and then click on the link that says, "fascinating review of Texas case law".

Again, Littleton is really difficult to explain, because it's so confusing. And the judge basically brings up a lot of god.


Dylan

[Dylan]

Additionally, Nikki and her husband were NOT estranged or legally separated as has been reported in the media.


Dylan