Skip to comments.Court revives transgender widow’s legal fight (TX)
Posted on 02/13/2014 5:55:22 PM PST by Olog-hai
A Texas appeals court on Thursday overturned a judges ruling that had voided the marriage of a transgender widow whose firefighter husband died battling a blaze.
The 13th Texas Court of Appeals sent the case of Nikki Araguz back to the lower court, saying there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding (Araguzs) sex and whether the marriage was a same sex marriage.
In 2011, state District Judge Randy Clapp in Wharton County ruled that the marriage between Nikki Araguz and her husband Thomas Araguz was void as a matter of law.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
An egg farm, how ironic.
Please, no pictures.
IT IS VOID
I disagree with the use of the word “widow” because it’s just flat out false. There is no such thing as a true “sex change” because you can’t change a person’s chromosomes, which determine the hormones produced. You can take hormone pills but the minute you stop, you refert back again.
At what point in a relationship do you tell the other party that you used to be the opposite sex?
What kind of person, who after being told the above, say that’s cool and gets married to them?
That’s either some good man made nookie or something.
“What kind of person, who after being told the above, say thats cool and gets married to them?”
That is really the question here.
That’s funny! But the truth is the husband probably had gayness inside and he knew he was getting it on with a man.
She basically is/was born a woman with AIS.
She’s not really “Transgender” in the common meaning of the word.
There is real mental illness involved
Interesting link. I have never heard of that condition.
Interesting. Thanks for the update.
I thought that “she” didn’t quite fit the mold, that’s why I posted it.
That picture could fool me.
From what I can see from her story, She was basically born a woman with a health condition relating to her sex organs. Androgyny or what have you.
I don’t see the “transgender” angle at all in the common meaning of it.
But they were married before he had the whackadickoffame.
just another good example of learning something new every day, here on FR.
Thanks again for the link.
There is no “widow” because there is no woman involved and there is no marriage involved.
Sorry, if they were married of record then this person is entitled to whatever widow benefits exist.
It seems pretty low to me to question the validity of the marriage now.
Perhaps that could have been done at the time of the marriage, but not at this point.
The guy died doing his job, a dangerous job which we encourage people to do, in part, by offering generous benefits to their surviving family if they do actually die in the performance of the dangerous job.
Here is a hill not to (excuse the coincidence) die on.
Now you’re recognizing liberalism as legitimate. Sanctioned by God, even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.