Skip to comments.Court refuses 'pregnant man' Thomas Beatie's divorce (Bring a bucket)
Posted on 03/29/2013 6:52:19 PM PDT by haffast
An Arizona judge has refused to grant a divorce to a transgender man who gave birth to three children.
The judge said there was insufficient evidence that Thomas Beatie was male when he married; the state bans same-sex marriage.
In 2008, Mr Beatie, who had lived as a man for decades, gave birth to a girl, the first of three pregnancies.
He is legally male but kept his female reproductive organs and bore children because his wife was infertile.
A spokesman for Mr Beatie, Ryan Gordon, said Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach's comments came as a shock. He said his client, who hopes to marry his current girlfriend, planned to appeal the ruling.
"It's unfortunate that the judge out here doesn't recognise marriage in another state,'' Mr Gordon said.
"I'm clearly a man: socially, legally, psychologically, physically - the whole ball of wax," Mr Beatie told the Arizona Republic in December.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
It's a messed up world.
This is just so disgusting and so wrong all over. I feel for the children.....
This is your brain on liberalism..
This is what the faggots want. They want to jam up the legal system with bullshit divorces in states that don’t support gay marriage.
This is right out of Alinsky. Overwhelm the system.
Homosexuality is an abomination that should be shunned and forced back into the deepest corners of society.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
How can one rely on the validity of government documents if that same government engages in retroactive document fraud?
“It’s unfortunate that the judge out here doesn’t recognise marriage in another state,’’ Mr Gordon said.
It’s unfortunate that idiots refuse to recognise genetic truths.
I was thinking that maybe a 15-year-old could file papers legally declaring themselves 21, and then they could drink.
I’m thinking about deciding that I present as black, and filing for payment as a black farmer. Oh, I’ll also say I present as a farmer. Apparently, we live in a magical time when you just get to declare whatever you want to be.
I also have declared myself a 6-ft 11-inch black male with basketball skills, and am looking to file lawsuit against the University of Maryland if they won’t grant me a scholarship.
I read about this mad scientist crap years ago, some Brit Doc had postulated it but if its been done then where`s the inevitable medical uproar over the procedure?
You need to be a bit more discriminating there.
I’m really confused.
Thankfully not all judges are corrupt ignoramuses that think like dull parents trying to accommodate dull children.
I give up.
Did (s)he consider the 'wife' infertile because (s)he couldn't get the 'wife' pregnant? Anyone thing a lack of male plumbing in the 'marriage' might have been a factor?
And that is exactly the point. The people involved in this horrible mess give not one damn about the children. All they care about is their personal gratification.
“Oh what a twisted web we weave”....
I've long ago forgotten what I learned in school when genetics was covered. So please help!
If there are no markers for male genetics, would that maybe have consequences healthwise for the children?
The Doctor in question believed it was possible to create an "abdominal pregnancy". The olvaries are not attached to the fallopian tubes, fimbrea waves the ovum into it so in theory IF spermatozoa can unite with the ovum (extremely rare) outside of the fallopian pathway to the uterus, the blastocyst can implant into serous tissues outside of the uterus, its one of the bonifide reasons an abortion IS medically needed to save the mother`s life.
Imagine if you will, a slab of tissue, many inches long and tied into the blood supply of a major organ in the abdomen. That's what you`d have left after a full term gestational placental attachment(starts off small and grows).In the uterus, it contracts and can naturally stem the hemorrhaging, but outside? Can we say, MASSIVE internal hemorrhage? Hypovolemic shock would quickly kill the person in question.
But this is a medical condition,so can we also say "..first, do no harm...", it`s part of the Hippocratic Oath, why then would a "Medical Doctor" create a pathological condition that has a high degree of probability for killing the patient?
Sounds medically ethical to you?