Wow. I’m currently more excited about a legal development than I’ve been in several years. Whouda thunk it. Texas of all places. I just keep saying it. Texas. Texas. Texas. That’s right the first same sex marriage comes from texas.
That’s right. Texas is going to have the first same sex marriage, and the texas laws make it possible. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/po/20000830/co/20000830002.html
I hope we see waves of transexuals attempting marriage in all states. Just goes to show you how stupid it is to try and restrict marriage. Loopholes will always pop up.
I was going to originally post this in MPSIMS, but figured some people would probably find a debate in it.
I’m sorry, you’ve read that wrong. What it actually says is that in Texas it is now legal to marry a STEER. Which is actually no surprise at all considering the Texan proclivity for farm animals…
So oldscratch, if I read the article right, it says that a person who has undergone surgery / hormone treatments (or whatever else is involved, I’m not well-versed on the subject) to become outwardly a member of the opposite sex, can actuall marry a member of their (new) sex (in Texas), since chromosomally they are still a member of their former sex, and in Texas your legal sex is determined by your chromosomes?
i.e. I, Arnold, become Arnoldina W. through a sex-change operation. Then I can marry a woman and Texas will not consider it a same-sex marriage.
It seems to me that this would be a rarely occurring situation, and probably won’t prompt hordes of people descending on Texas courthouses. Though I agree with you that it is ironic that a court decision attempting to overturn a same-sex marriage is resulting in a “same-sex” marriage of a different type.
Exactly. But, this is where it starts getting interesting. In California, we don’t choose chromosones but outward appearence. So, if I marry a woman who happens to be a man in California, my marriage should be recognized in Texas. I’m very interested in the legal ramifications of this. Also, I would think this could prompt a new challenge to all sorts of other laws against various Texas and federal laws. One of the most important I can think of is transexuals marrying to gain citizenship. Considering that the INS would have to get tied up that would create all sorts of dilemas.
Now you are proposing the situation where a man marries a transgendered woman in the state of California. The wife is a woman who was born a man and underwent medical procedures to become a woman. In Texas this marriage would be illegal, but in California it’s legal, and Texas recognizes California marriages. Is that your statement?
I know that when it was being proposed to allow same-sex marriages in Hawaii several states were going to pass laws that would effectively mean that they were not forced to recognize marriages in other states. What’s the latest on that? I imagine that Texas could pass a law saying they don’t recognize all California marriages.
And imagine the headaches that would cause. A heterosexual couple marries in California, and finds out they’re marriage is suddenly void because they live in Texas.
If you don’t mind, I would appreciate an explanation as to why you must associate the Holy Name of our God with the language’s vulgarest word in the title of a thread in Great Debates (this ain’t the Pit).
The very first thread I opened at SDMB was in General Questions, and I titled it “The Gay Porn Problem”. That is a popular name, assigned by linguists, to the problem of the third person singular pronoun of a particular gender, i.e., “Bob and John sat together on the couch. He put his hand on his thigh.” It was a lively thread, with much input from many posters interested in linguistics.
But y’know what? To my surprise, I couldn’t find the thread about an hour later, and then I stumbled on a thread called “Problems with pronouns”. Huh? I clicked it, and sure enough, there it was. My thread. But the moderator had changed the title.
I wrote a gentle note of protest and asked for an explanation why the title was changed. As I recall, the response was something along the lines of, well, it just wasn’t tasteful.
Well, I submit that that is the case here. Your title is not tasteful, and if you have any warmth in your heart at all, and any care for me, you will request that a moderator change it. I would sooner you titled your thread “Blah blah Lib’s fucking mother blah blah” than what you have titled it.
What is your move? A blistering rejoinder? A mocking reply? A curt acknowledgement? Ignore me? What?
You’re right, Lib, the title of this thread is in poor taste and should be changed. However, your indignation over the use of “the Holy Name of our God” is offensive in its own way.
Lib was right in that the thread title was a bit much. Not necessarily for the reasons he gives, but overall it was over the top. I’ve shortened it and removed the part that contributed least to the meaningfullness of the title and most to its offensiveness.
OK, that was horrible. Next time I’m in your state, I will be sure to defile it. Next time that you visit my beautiful state, I hope you get welcomed by a bunch of club wielding natives.
Or, we could just form our own country. It would be a lot cheaper for gas.
I humbly apologize to the people of Texas, and the outrage they must feel over the cheap shot I took at their state while going for a quick Yuk.
I also humbly apologize to anybody in Texas or elsewhere who may prefer the company of steers to that of members of the opposite sex, or of the same sex for the same reasons I just mentioned.
I hope the people of Texas will stop amassing by the border awaiting my arrival and instead accept my apology.
I’m just glad I live in California, the only state (that I know of) that allows people to marry themselves.
Anyway, let me tell you this… if you see a loophole (much like this one) that seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t as loopholish as you thought… for with every good loophole comes a counter-loophole somewhere else, and, in essence, your loophole gets loopholed.
