Topic: Texas Technicality?
Lynann's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:10 PM
Makes same sex marriage legal? haha This is an interesting little tidbit that the New York Times printed and I found on Police News & Law Enforcement Community's Police Link.

Interesting eh?

You learn something new every day. And this one struck us as absurd, but the New York Times printed it -- so factual, it must be.

Back in 1999, Texas became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Come again?

Stunned us, too. But there is a teensy technicality. The case, "Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes." So two women could theoretically marry, but only if one of them used to be a man; and visa versa.

"The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal."

Paradoxically is right! Women can't REALLY marry women here in the great state of Texas. They can only marry women who used to be men, but are now women. Getting dizzy?

Sure, the end result is two women living together in holy matrimony, but not really. Really? We think it is, since regardless of biological makeup, the marriages are between people who live their lives as members of the same gender.

Confused? That makes all of us. If this is the case, than what is stopping Texas from legalizing gay marriage? After all, a chromosome is invisible. And these folks are living as same-sex couples. What's the difference?

We need an expert. Where is Miss California when you need her?

franshade's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:15 PM
Lyn - Ms California can't help herself much less anyone else :laughing:


Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:29 PM

Lyn - Ms California can't help herself much less anyone else :laughing:




This comment makes Zero sense! laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Miss Calif is Miss Calif. IST runner-up to Miss USA.

If/when Miss USA Becomes Miss Universe (Aug)
then Carrie Prejean will become Miss USA!

franshade's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:30 PM


Lyn - Ms California can't help herself much less anyone else :laughing:




This comment makes Zero sense! laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Miss Calif is Miss Calif. IST runner-up to Miss USA.

If/when Miss USA Becomes Miss Universe (Aug)
then Carrie Prejean will become Miss USA!


Fanta you would think you were getting a kick back rofl rofl


yellowrose10's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:38 PM
Edited by yellowrose10 on Fri 05/15/09 12:39 PM
Back in 1999, Texas became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.



ummmmm no...Massachusetts was the furst state. but I couldn't find anything that said Texas has same sex marriages. I have no problem with it...but I don't remember it. where does it say this? I found where it talks about transsexuals

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:38 PM
They do get quite a lot!

Besides its the honor for these women.
Years of dreams and often a lifetime of hard work!

yellowrose10's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:40 PM
Paradoxically, it's the more conservative states that tend to allow such same-sex unions. Courts in Texas and Kansas, for example, have ruled that no operation can alter a person's sex in the eyes of the law. In the 1999 Texas decision, a state appeals court invalidated the marriage between a deceased man and his male-to-female transsexual widow, after the widow tried to sue her husband's employer for wrongful death. Gender, the court concluded, is "fixed by our Creator at birth."

The unintended consequence of that decision, however, is that a transsexual could marry someone of the same gender in Texas. After all, if a male-to-female transsexual is legally a male in the state, regardless of her surgery and appearance, then she is free to marry another female. In fact, at least two couples have taken advantage of this Texan loophole since the ruling. A 2002 Kansas decision, In re Gardiner, created this same loophole, although it's unclear whether any couples have made use of it yet.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2096495/

I assume this what what the OP refers to

Lynann's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:41 PM
You know I was under the impression that mostly teen girls and gay guys watched and cared about beauty pageants...

Just saying...

Fanta does seem quite concerned with this subject. Maybe he is secretly on Donald Trumps pay-roll. Trump does own all that pageant crap and I know he is looking for all the publicity he can get.

Heck, he had all sorts of people on television competing to be his apprentice not too long ago right?

Is it crazy to think Fanta might be on the Trump pay-roll?

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/15/09 12:59 PM
If I were Gay lynann, would you want to hook up?

laugh