Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill (New Zealand)

On August 10, 2018 the New Zealand Governance and Administration Committee issued a report on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, recommending that the bill be passed with proposed amendments. The bill reenacts the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act of 1995, and contains the following proposed amendments, among others:  Continue reading “Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill (New Zealand)”

In re Estate of Gardiner (USA)

In 2002, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that  a post-operative male-to female transsexual was not a woman within the meaning of the statutes and could not validly marry another man. This case is effectively overruled by Obergefell v. Hodges.

Transgender activists who claim that the fight for marriage equality did not benefit them are simply lying.

In re Estate of Gardiner

Kantaras v. Kantaras (USA)

 

A_1_1Amichael_FLPET_0724

Michael Kantaras underwent surgery in 1987 to remove his breasts and ovaries and began taking hormones to transition to living as a man. He married a woman, Linda, and they later went through a contentious divorce and child custody case. In 2004, the Florida Supreme Court found that the marriage was null and void because Michael was still a woman and same­-sex marriages were illegal in Florida at the time. The parties later settled.

Kantaras v. Kantaras

CNN Article on Settlement

Bassett v. Snyder @ACLUofMichigan @MeghanAtCA @ParkerMolloy (USA)

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the LGBT Project of the ACLU of Michigan
Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the LGBT Project of the ACLU of Michigan

Judge David Lawson, a federal judge sitting in Detroit, declared Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits unconstitutional in Bassett v. Snyder.  He said in his decision that the law is based on “irrational prejudice” and that it discriminated by forcing municipalities to cancel family benefits for gay and lesbian employees while heterosexual employees had the ability to marry their partners to maintain those benefits. Continue reading “Bassett v. Snyder @ACLUofMichigan @MeghanAtCA @ParkerMolloy (USA)”

Beatie v. Beatie (USA)

Thomas Beatie

An Arizona Appeals Court ruled that the marriage of Thomas Beatie and Nancy J. Beatie was valid and could be dissolved by divorce. A previous court had ruled that Beatie, who is female, was legally female because he had not been sterilized and because he had given birth to the couple’s children, and therefore held their marriage was invalid because of Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Beatie v. Beatie.

Marriage Amendment Bill 2014 (Hong Kong)

Amendments to Hong Kong marriage laws that were merely straightforward changes meant to comply with a top-court ruling last year were voted down by equal numbers of pro-establishment and pan-democratic legislators. The government’s Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014 seeks to revise the Marriage Ordinance after the Court of Final Appeal ruled in July last year that a transgender woman, W, could marry her boyfriend as it was unconstitutional to ban her from doing so.

Transgender marriage law vetoed by Legco _ South China Morning Post

Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Act (Australia)

11

Martine Delaney is a Man who identifies as a Woman. He welcomes a bill that will remove the requirement under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act that transgender people must divorce if they want the government to officially recognise their gender (sic).

We support civil marriage for opposite-sex and same-sex couples and do not support legislation that requires heterosexual Men who transition to divorce their wives.

ADVOCATE WELCOMES BILL TO END FORCED DIVORCE FOR TRANSGENDER TASMANIANS _ Tasmanian Times.

Talking Point_ Commitment to love knows no boundaries _ The Mercury.

Latta v. Otter (USA)

Latta v. Otter is a case that paved the way for same-sex marriage in Idaho. The decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals includes bizarre language regarding “gender identity,” as follows:

“Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) also underscores why the continuation of the same-sex marriage prohibitions today is quite obviously about gender (Ed. Note: emphasis added). Lawrence held that it violates due process for states to criminalize consensual, noncommercial same-sex sexual activity that occurs in private between two unrelated adults. See id. at 578. After Lawrence, then, the continuation of the same-sex marriage bans necessarily turns on the gender identity (Ed. Note: emphasis added) of the spouses, not the sexual activity they may engage in.”

and

“The same-sex marriage prohibitions, in other words, impose harms on sexual orientation and gender identity (Ed. Note: emphasis added) minorities precisely because they impose and enforce gender-normative (Ed. Note: emphasis added) behavior.”

Same-sex marriage bans harm Men who want to marry Men and Women who want to marry Women – that is, they harm homosexuals in homosexual relationships. They do not directly harm people based on “gender identity.” Indeed, Transgender Women involves in what they call “lesbian” relationships are actually heterosexual men who can get married regardless of same-sex marriage bans, as Meghan Stabler did in 2011.

The court’s erroneous use of “gender” and “gender identity” in the Latta decision is no doubt intentional and stems from the way GLBT Organizations have started framing Gay marriage.

Latta v. Otter.