Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Transexual) Widow offers 'proof' husband knew history (Texas same sex marriage case)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE ^ | Aug. 3, 2010, 11:24AM | PEGGY O'HARE and MATTHEW WOOLBRIGHT

Posted on 08/03/2010 1:39:31 PM PDT by a fool in paradise

Attorneys for the widow of a Wharton firefighter killed in the line of duty presented Monday what they called proof that the fallen hero knew of his wife's gender history.

The evidence they presented — (includes) an e-mail exchange and a witness statement...

...a legal battle centering on who stands to be paid monetary benefits resulting from Thomas Araguz's death..

Nikki Araguz's lawyers (argue the marriage)... was valid because of a new provision in the Texas Family Code that took effect last year, which allows a person to present a court order relating to a sex change to obtain a marriage license. The couple also had what could legally be recognized as an "informal marriage" in Texas, the attorneys argued, even though Nikki Araguz didn't undergo genital reconstructive surgery until two months after they exchanged marital vows in a church ceremony...

Thomas Araguz's mother has filed a lawsuit in Wharton County ...requesting that the couple's marriage be voided because both her son and Nikki Araguz were males at the time of the wedding ceremony. Same-sex marriages are not allowed in Texas.

...Thomas Araguz gave a sworn deposition in April claiming he did not know his wife was formerly a male and stating she had never had gender surgery.

..."The statute in 2009 clearly trumps a case law from a lower level appellate court in 1999," said Nikki Araguz's attorney, Phyllis Randolph Frye.

Ellis said the new provision says nothing about allowing people to legally change their gender but simply lets a person present a court order for a sex change or name change for identification purposes to obtain a marriage license - such as if Nikki Araguz, born a male, wanted to marry a woman...

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: firefighter; homosexualagenda; loserpays; samesexmarriage; transexual

1 posted on 08/03/2010 1:39:42 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

PING


2 posted on 08/03/2010 1:41:13 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

This is getting complicated. I suspect that we will need flowcharts by the time it is finished.


3 posted on 08/03/2010 1:43:55 PM PDT by texmexis best (My)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“The couple also had what could legally be recognized as an “informal marriage” in Texas, the attorneys argued, even though Nikki Araguz didn’t undergo genital reconstructive surgery until two months after they exchanged marital vows in a church ceremony...”

That is what they call a clue. Seems the Fire Captian liked his poles.


4 posted on 08/03/2010 1:44:23 PM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Somehow, I think we are going to be hearing some jokes involving a hook and ladder.


5 posted on 08/03/2010 1:44:33 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 21 days away from outliving Francis Gary Powers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Nikki Araguz makes a much better female than most transsexuals - seems to have been born with some sort of androgen deficiency or receptor insensitivity.

Her “spokesperson” - the big, deep-voiced person with the grandmother hair and the red jacket - not so much.


6 posted on 08/03/2010 1:48:30 PM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best

Complicated? It is just plain WEIRD!


7 posted on 08/03/2010 1:50:24 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Satan is a Democrat and Obama is his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola, L-L-Lola


8 posted on 08/03/2010 1:50:43 PM PDT by MissTed (My dogs have more integrity then my President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

Their “informal marriage” did not meet requirements for a legal marriage in Texas. Case closed.

We’ve also got lesbians, married in Massachusetts, trying to get this state to certify their Texas divorce (aided by an activist judge in Austin).


9 posted on 08/03/2010 1:53:47 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

He kinda reminds me of Nancy Grace.


10 posted on 08/03/2010 2:05:24 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ( I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“Their “informal marriage” did not meet requirements for a legal marriage in Texas. Case closed.”

My only interest was whether the fire chief knew his situation with respect to his “wife”. It seems he did. Whether the marriage is legal is rather boring given the details of this story. As far as I remember the life insurance beneficiary was his “wife” the he/she. Given that you can prove he knowingly married, lived with and elected he/she as his beneficiary I don’t see how they cannot award the funds to he/she. The marriage question is inconsequential to the legal status of the life insurance contract. He/she wins the dough.


11 posted on 08/03/2010 2:06:40 PM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

Why should an insurance company be forced to pay if it was based on a fraud?


12 posted on 08/03/2010 2:08:25 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

The homosexual lobby is trying to defeat Texas’ marriage laws the same way they overruled the sodomy law, through the courts.


13 posted on 08/03/2010 2:08:47 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Nikki Araguz didn't undergo genital reconstructive surgery until two months after they exchanged marital vows in a church ceremony

marriage is invalid.

that said.. the guy definately knew.
14 posted on 08/03/2010 2:11:24 PM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“Why should an insurance company be forced to pay if it was based on a fraud?”

First the insurance company is required to prove fraud on a non-payment. So far all they could prove is the fire chief was kind of kinky in his tastes in brides. Where is the fraud? Nikki did not undergo sexual reassignment until after the “marriage” was consumated. Its pretty obvious the fire chief liked his odd little toy and was personally aware of its characteristics. The fire chief knowingly and legally identified his “odd toy” as the beneficiary. A contract was formed with the insurance company as soon as the beneficiary change was noted and the premium accepted. In no case would the insurance company run blood on the beneficiary, but they likely did on the insured. So again, where is the fraud? The husband was not injured and neither was the insurance company. Under law they pay out to Nikki.


15 posted on 08/03/2010 2:16:36 PM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Is it legal to leave your Firefighter's insurance to someone who is not your wife? If he/she was named as beneficiary, and he could have left the money to someone else, then I think the insurance company has to pay.

16 posted on 08/03/2010 2:22:29 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (Southeast Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Paraphilic disorder strikes again...


17 posted on 08/03/2010 2:25:31 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (Palin: Obama lacks 'the cojones' to tackle immigration!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best
They need to call Ms. Huffington as an expert witness. She has a demonstrated ability to sort out gender/sexuality issues.
18 posted on 08/03/2010 2:35:52 PM PDT by JPG (Reincarnation is a myth. This Is It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Sounds like Mom wants the marriage invalidated (which it probably should be given the facts presented) so that she would stand to be the heir of the son’s estate. The cohabitant/partner would stand to receive any life insurance policies based on valid beneficiary status on the policy, but in the absence of a valid marriage or a will, the cohabitant/partner does not inherit real property or other assets.


19 posted on 08/03/2010 2:41:30 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Thomas Araguz gave a sworn deposition in April claiming he did not know his wife was formerly a male and stating she had never had gender surgery.
20 posted on 08/03/2010 2:45:54 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

If the firefighter named “it” as his beneficiary, then the marriage question is moot. You can name anyone as your beneficiary for life insurance, although in community property states, you need your spouse’s permission if you name anyone other than him/her.

But if the firefighter never named “it” as the beneficiary, or if this is about other spousal benefits, then the legality of the marriage becomes an issue.


21 posted on 08/03/2010 2:55:15 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

“But if the firefighter never named “it” as the beneficiary, or if this is about other spousal benefits, then the legality of the marriage becomes an issue.”

My understanding is the fire chief did in fact name the he/she as his beneficiary. The dispute over benefits comes from his first (real) wife, who feels she is entitled to the proceeds due the fire chiefs sons. On a moral level I agree with her, unfortunately, the legal argument is simple contract law, which will favor the named beneficiary Nikki.


22 posted on 08/04/2010 7:36:43 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

They were splitting up at the time of his death. Even in “divorce” he wouldn’t have been awarded the entire estate.


23 posted on 08/05/2010 9:25:27 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson