Texas Repubs Say Allowing Transgender Marriages Was a Terrible Oversight And They Promise Never To Do It Again

kolkhost042511USE.jpg
Lois Kolkhorst wants to take it all back
Republican state legislators are seeking to correct a historic mistake they say should never, ever have happened: Allowing Texans who are transgendered to marry, like they can in almost every other state in the union.

How this diabolical heresy first got passed is due to some language slipped into a massive bill at the end of the session by a Republican, Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham, who is now one of the sponsors of the bill to remove it and is not commenting on why.

Supporters say the new bill makes clear that in Texas marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and gender is determined at birth; opponents of the change note this is the 21st Century.

Reports the AP:

"We want to be recognized as people. We want to have the same rights as all of you," Lisa Scheps of the Transgender Education Network of Texas said at a March hearing on Williams' bill. No one testified in favor of the legislation.

Among those who have been in Austin lobbying against the change: Nikki Araguz, the transgendered wife of a Wharton fireman who died fighting a blaze, leading to a messy battle over his benefits.

My Voice Nation Help
43 comments
Someone
Someone

I like how Republicans want the government to stay out of our business (read: guns, corporations) until it's something they morally object to (loving unions).

David
David

Let me guess "WHAAA", you were born and raised in TX and graduated High School (IF you did) in TX too. Your IGNORANT/HATEFUL comments tell me that you must be a closed case if you are that threatened by the LGBT community having EQUAL basic rights as in being able to get married. You say, they can get married to the opposite sex, but they are NOT attracted to the opposite sex. What part of that don't you get? Nobody chooses love, love chooses us. Learn to love others around you without being so judgmental, and maybe, just maybe your eyes might just open up to see a wonderful World.......outside of Texas that is !! This State is the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the Country

Katy
Katy

WHAA wrote: "it still makes no difference unless you address the main point, which is, there is no "right" for homosexuals to get married, period."

Oh, now I see the problem here. This article is not about gay marriage.

At all.

Schwarzestiefel
Schwarzestiefel

If Republicans want to take the USA back to the 1950s when they think everything was hunky dory and neato, - fine, let them do that, as long as they reinstate the 91`% tax rate on incomes of over $400K, and the 52% tax rate on corporations. Also they can shut down free trade and NAFTA while they're at it, and reinvent the steel and electronic manufacturing industries and reinstate all the good American Dream jobs that they pissed away by giving them away to China.

unclelijah
unclelijah

Lois looks like she might have a TG dog in this hunt--just sayin'.

Avatar Jack
Avatar Jack

So even if I get a sex change, piss standing up, get to shave my beard every morning and register as a man on my driving certificate Texan law would rather recognize what my gender was the minute I came out of my mother’s womb- never mind if I no longer have a womb to begin with…

http://scallywagandvagabond.co...

WHAAA
WHAAA

Sorry, the people voted and only marriage between a real man and a real woman is recognized. You can't always get what you want.

big red
big red

Having Nikki Araguz be the face of your argument definitely means you hold a losing hand in this legislature.

Chasvick
Chasvick

Another example of Republicans keeping big government out of our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except when it is their idea.

WHAAA
WHAAA

I see you gave up trying. It's for the best.

Marriage is a between one real man and one real woman. Clear enough for you?

WHAAA
WHAAA

Those meanie Republicans are responsible for everything that is wrong in the World! HUFF!!!

Graham Beth97
Graham Beth97

Yes, it's all about looks (rolling eyes). If that's true, a lot more women would be lesbians-Just sayin'.

Katy
Katy

The problem with this argument is that under our system, the people don’t get to vote on some issues related to basic rights. It’s a tyranny of the majority thing… Read the Federalist Papers.

For example, we cannot vote to enslave you... We cannot vote to treat Jews as second class citizens.

That being said, Rick Perry’s “Oops! I accidentally legalized transgender marriage!” makes for a GREAT headline.

Stoopidpooka
Stoopidpooka

What I think is AWESOME about this law, if passed, is that it actually will ALLOW certain same-sex marriages to go forward - i.e., if someone born a man who has a sex change operation into a woman wants to marry another woman, she will be able to under this law, if passed. And that is just as likely a scenario, if not more so, than the one the proponents of this law are trying to stop. So how, exactly, does this law "eliminate confusion"? 

Ted Stickles
Ted Stickles

Hi USA1! I see you still will never, ever, ever, ever concede an argument, even when you are so completely obviously wrong. Katy schooled you, in everything, but you just hold up cliches like a cardboard shield against her piercing truth. Maybe you shouldn't 'hide your head in the sand'? 'Clear enough for you?' Or am I 'playing the blame game' some more?

Times change, people grow, but USA1 stays static in his deep dark hole.

Beth Bisous
Beth Bisous

No, the lobbyist-butt-kissing members of Both houses of Congress are reponsible. It's just that Republicans have their lips superglued to David Koch's posterior.

ribalding
ribalding

Not exactly. I don't think republicans invented hipsters.

Otherwise? Yep. You're on the hook.

Graham Beth97
Graham Beth97

Rick Perry - the reason that Texas missed W as governor of Texas.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Since there is no basic "right" to get married, you're argument is moot.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Same sex marriages are banned by the Texas Constitution. Don't you remember losing the vote on that?

Devlin32
Devlin32

If you just lost your trash-hauling business after 22 years of back-breaking work, you'd be holed up and bitter too!

(If arguing here helps him cope, pls let him have his say. Don't want anymore crew cut Michael Douglas characters walking amongst us, ready to explode.)

WHAAA
WHAAA

Katy did not school me on anything. It's a figment of your overactive imagination. You are letting your personal beliefs overrule reality, Ted.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Feel better now, Ted?

ribalding
ribalding

You couldn't be more wrong about the "Koch" bit.

Otherwise, you're about on track.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Don't forget about "tolerance". Remember, it was you PC leftists that made it a buzz word. You must tolerate others or be labeled a hypocrite.

Hijackerjake
Hijackerjake

too fun and way too easy with today's breed of movement conservatives, aka modern Republicans,

WHAAA
WHAAA

Yep, it's super easy to scapegoat. Playing the blame game is fun too!

Andrew Glasgow
Andrew Glasgow

Right you are. Let's take away the right of douchebags to get married. Guess you're SOL.

Jlittlestorm
Jlittlestorm

Why does what others choose to do bother you so much that you feel so convicted to argue this point. Has any Gay or Lesbian or Trans-gendered person ever hurt you, took rights away from you? Cause you any sort of anguish? Why can't you just allow people to be people. The Constitution was written how long ago??? We should follow the spirit of it, not follow it to the letter. If we followed the Bible to the letter Slavery would still be accepted. Sometimes we need to grow up and let go of ideals our bigoted parents pressed upon us. Just as we have to grow and change and see that not all boundaries are so clear cut, and the lines sometimes blur, so does our Nation have to grow and see these things too. Let people just be people and everyone should be treated equally and with respect regardless of how you may feel inside...you need to keep some opinions to yourself.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Oh, I neglected to add... Allow me to correct your statement...transgender can marry, temporarily.

WHAAA
WHAAA

So the 14th Amendment guarantees everyone the right to get married? Is that what you are claiming? If there is this alleged "right" for everyone to get married and precedents have been set on homosexual marriage, why aren't all 50 statesallowing homosexual marriage? Why is homosexual marriage on hold in CA due to the voters saying they don't want it? You can yammer on all day with your multi-paragraph, rambling postings, it still makes no difference unless you address the main point, which is, there is no "right" for homosexuals to get married, period.

Katy
Katy

I don't know that this comment section is the proper place to address the reading comprehension problems and the lack of basic understanding of our system.

Briefly, however, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - again, as determined by decades of Supreme Court precedent that has been universally upheld by justices of all stripes - has due process protections held against the states. Both procedural and substantive due process. If I were arguing a case related the right to familial relations, I would argue the 100s of case precedents, plus the right to privacy, plus due process provisions. And I'd win... The right to get married, have kids, and raise a family, is not terribly controversial under the law.

Beyond that, once government chooses to allow something that is NOT a fundamental right (for example, government does not have to give ANYONE food stamps), they cannot then parcel out the right on a discriminatory basis (discriminatory here dealing with “similarly situated” persons and not protected classes. This is why 3 year old white Christian kids get frisked in airports.

Oddly enough, they might be able to refuse a marriage license based on bad science (i.e. what gender people were thought to be at birth) more easily than a hetero vs. gay basis (which is possibly gender discrimination).

Regardless, all of this ignores the fact that your initial statement betrays that you either had not read or had misunderstood the article, which states that under current law, transgendered people can marry.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Still waiting for the section of the Constitution that deals with marriage...Will it take long? I've got things to do today.

Katy
Katy

For about the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found a right to marriage, procreation, and familial relations/privacy . Even where such a right has not eben stated to be fundamental, a state would still be unable to approve marriages on a discriminatory basis - or at least a basis that has not reasonable relationship to a legitimate end of government...

The case typically quoted by later Supreme Court cases is Skinner v. Oklahoma (which is a fun case even in general involving castrating a prisoner). The old miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia and the Perez case, as well as Buck v. Bell are used as precedent a lot, too.

Now, these cases have not been extended to mean that, say, gay folks can get married. However, the right to have a family, marry who you want and to procreate are very well established in general under Supreme Court precedent, and by now, even a serious change in the make up of the Court is unlikely to reverse this.

You ought to read a book or go to school instead of seeking information from anonymous folks on the net, though...

WHAAA
WHAAA

Where can I find the text of this "right" to marriage?

OK, if it makes you feel better, your argument is invalid.

Katy
Katy

There is a recognized fundamental right to marriage, procreation, familial "stuff"...However, even if there were no such recognized right, it would NOT make my argument "moot." It would make it invalid.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Junior is on board patrol today.

Wyatt
Wyatt

NO YOU'RES IS

WHAAA
WHAAA

jross- I think you are forgetting gays can get married anytime they want (as long as it's to a person of opposite sex) therefor they aren't being denied of anything. No "rights" are being denied. BTW, the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to get married no matter how many times you people bring it up.

That's funny you bring up Proposition 8. California homosexuals were the ones who demanded it be put to public vote. They lost. Then they cried foul and brought it into the court. BACKFIRE. It looks like the people of CA really don't accept gay marriage afterall. How many conservatives in CA again? It would appear alot of liberals don't approve of it either. Hmmm

jross
jross

Amendment 14, Section 1 of the US Constitution states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this means that, if a state gives some adults the right to "marry", then all qualified adults must be given the same rights. When I say "qualified", I do not mean "a man and a woman" adults, I mean "consenting" adults. There is a case from California working it's way to the US Supreme Court, because a judge declared California Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, a decisions that the California AG supports.

Also, Article IV, of the US Constitution States: Section 1 - Each State to Honor all othersFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

What this means is that a marriage, or other legal contract, made in one state must be recognized in all states. Otherwise, to be legal, a married couple might have to get married in each state they moved to, or even visited, to keep from violating state laws.

A case in Texas dealing with two men married in Massachusetts, and seeking a divorce once they moved to Texas, was challenged by the Texas AG, and the federal judge declared the Texas DoMA, both Act and Amendment, to be unconstitutional under Article IV.

48% of Southern Republicans want interracial marriage to be illegal, but it doesn't matter if 90% of Southern voters voted to make such marriages illegal, the US Supreme Court has ruled on that one, and their decision trumps voters discriminatory votes.

I give state DoMAs 3 more years, maybe, before the USSC does to them what it did to interracial marriage bans.

WHAAA
WHAAA

Homosexuals have the same rights as you or me. Exaggerations and apples/oranges comparisons aren't going to work.

Dunstan213
Dunstan213

Things change. You're on the wrong side of history. Slaves were once counted as literal nobodies. So were women. Even Germans and Irish were persecuted as the 'Pope's insidious army'. None of those folks had a choice about how they were born.Same with GLBTs.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...