I Just Did a Word Search in a Certain 103-Page PDF File That Was Released to the Public About 40 Minutes Ago

I didn’t see the words “transgender” or “transsexual” anywhere therein.

I’m not saying they should or should not have been (though, given that the cases did not involve any trans marriages, I do lean toward the latter.)

However…

If Elaine Ladrach came back from the dead today and renewed her request for a marriage license at the Probate Court of Stark County, Ohio whilst waving a copy of the Obergefell v Hodges majority opinion, then Judge Denny Clunk’s successor would have to give her one – but could still brand her as being a man.  The Obergefell v Hodges majority opinion did not erase In re Ladrach or Littleton v. Prange or Kantaras v. Kantaras (or, for that matter, Goins v. West Group, not a marriage case but nevertheless a fungus which grew in the shadow of Littleton.)

So, I am questioning the accuracy of saying – as so many, including plenty of people who truly should know better, are – that the first 33 pages of that certain 103-page PDF file can be read to mean LGB*T* equality.

Mary Bonauto just proclaimed outside the Supreme Court, “And now, every person in this country who’s LGBT realizes they can marry tomorrow.”

Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree just proclaimed in an interview, “Finally, there is equality in the law.”

Will Nikki Araguz will feel that way if the Texas Supreme Court rules that her marriage to Thomas Araguz was a valid marriage, but one between two men?

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. I guess that depends on whether it’s marriage equality or gay marriage.

    If it says that marriage doesn’t consider gender in its application- it doesn’t say anything about the gender of straight or gay spouses. Or whether a spouse conforms to either of those nominal genders or any or none.

    I’m guessing it’s this as it’s based upon the equal protection clause.

    And – just as we have had to put up with the label of having a mental illness in order to get medical treatment- most will put up with having some benefits while working to improve the manner by which we receive them.

    We need the eggs.

    • Again – my complaint isn’t that the T word wasn’t in the opinion. After all, none of the marriages at issue involved trans people.

      My anger is at the declarations that this decision equates to ‘LGBT equality.’ This decision has no positive value whatsoever for any individual human being – T or L or G or B – in his or her capacity as an individual human being in any context beyond any existing or desired marital relationship. Put jobs, housing and public accommodations aside for the moment; it has already caused people who should know better to declare that in-progress trans marriage cases are moot, either forgetting or ignoring that such cases (not just the In re Araguz case but pretty much any trans marriage case) are not solely about the legality of the marriage but about the individual legal status of the trans spouse.

      Gay Marriage, Inc., declared Kantaras v. Kantaras to be a victory when Michael and Linda reached a custody settlement – after the Florida Court of Appeals had declared Michael (and ever FTM in Florida) to be female. If the Texas Supreme Court says that Nikki Araguz’s marriage to Thomas Araguz was a valid marriage – between two men – then Littleton v. Prange will be chiseled in stone and every trans person will be de-transitioned when crossing into Texas.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s