Nick Fulgham & Jessica Elliot (USA)

26680789_BG1

Nick Fulgham and Jessica Elliot married on September 18, 2014 at the Madison County Courthouse in Mississippi on September 18.  Nick, who was originally a female named Natalie, began the transition from female to living as a male in 2010. Fulgham was legally declared a male in Starkville, Mississippi on July 11, 2014.  Right wingers in Mississippi are sad because “two women” should not be allowed to wed.

We wish the happy couple a long and happy life together!

Transgender couple legally marries in Mississippi – MSNewsNow.

Miller v. Angel (USA)

The Superior Court of California held that the marriage of Jake Miller, who uses the stage name Buck Angel, was valid. He and his wife Elayne Angel were married in Louisiana after Buck had obtained a California court order recognizing his male sex and had been living as a man for years. His California birth certificate was amended several years after the marriage. In an effort to avoid paying spousal support, Elayne attempted to argue that their marriage was invalid on the grounds that Buck’s birth certificate had not yet been amended to reflect his male sex at the time the Louisiana marriage took place. The California court ruled that Buck was legally male, and that Louisiana law would recognize this as a marriage between a man and a woman.

Miller v. Angel.

Hämäläinen v. Finland (European Court of Human Rights)

Capture
Heli Hämäläinen, who came out as transgender during her marriage, lost her lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights that she should be allowed to be legally recognized as a female without changing her marital status. Because of Finland’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, Heli, 49, is not able to obtain legal recognition of her sex unless she converts her 18-year marriage into a civil partnership.
She has already had to undergo a psychiatric assessment and sterilization as part of the Finland’s legal requirements for “gender recognition.”
Grand Chamber judgment Hamalainen v. Finland Transsexuals official recognition of new gender.
Hämäläinen v. Finland

Pension Benefits Case (USA)

A major American car manufacturer reversed an initial decision to deny the woman her husband’s pension benefits based on its determination that their nearly-30-year marriage was void because he was transgender. 

TLDEF_ Victory! Transgender Man’s Surviving Spouse Wins Pension Benefits.

Trans Man’s Widow Wins Battle With Pension Provider _ Advocate.

3-25-14-Redacted.

11-22-13-Redacted.

Nikki Araguz @nikkiaraguz (USA)

imagesA transgender woman denied benefits after her firefighter husband died in the line of duty will get another chance to litigate the case in a state district courtroom, the 13th Court of Appeals ruled.  Nikki Araguz was denied benefits when the mother and ex-wife of late husband Thomas Trevino Araguz III filed a lawsuit claiming their marriage was void because of Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage.  The Texas appellate court held that Texas law recognizes that an individual who has had a “sex change” is eligible to marry a person of the opposite sex. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to litigate the issue of Araguz’ sex.

We hope Nikki prevails.

IN THE ESTATE OF THOMAS TREVINO ARAGUZ III, DECEASED.

Texas court revives transgender marriage case – San Antonio Express-News.

Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)

The applicant complained of the lack of legal recognition of her changed sex and in particular of her treatment in terms of employment and her social security and pension rights and of her inability to marry.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, owing to a clear and continuing international trend towards increased social acceptance of transsexuals and towards legal recognition of the new sexual identity of post-operative transsexuals. “Since there are no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, the Court reaches the conclusion that the notion of fair balance inherent in the Convention now tilts decisively in favour of the applicant” (§ 93 of the judgment).

The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 12 (right to marry and found a family) of the Convention. It was “not persuaded that it [could] still be assumed that [the terms of Article 12] must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria” (§ 100). The Court held that it was for the State to determine the conditions and formalities of transsexual marriages but that it “finds no justification for barring the transsexual from enjoying the right to marry under any circumstances” (§ 103).

Transsexual bride wins the right to marry man – Telegraph.

Transsexual wins right to marry _ Mail Online.

Grand Chamber judgment Goodwin v. United Kingdom 11.07.02.

In Re Davis (USA)

On October 30, 1999, Melanie Davis, then known as David Paul Summers, and Angela Summers  married in Brown County, Indiana. The marriage produced one child, K.S., who was born in July 2005. At some point, Davis was diagnosed with “gender dysphoria.”  Thereafter, on May 31, 2005, Davis filed a petition in Marion Circuit Court to change his name from David Paul Summers to Melanie Lauren Artemisia Davis. His petition also requested that the gender on his birth certificate be changed from male to female. The Marion Circuit Court granted the change of name on September 12, 2005. However, that court did not order Davis’s gender to be changed on the birth certificate until it issued an amended order in his case three years later, on October 21, 2008. In this amended order, the court directed that the gender (sic) designation on Davis’s birth certificate “be amended from Male to Female in order to conform to her identity, legal name and appearance.”

In 2012, Davis filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Monroe Circuit Court. Summers did not oppose the petition. On January 23, 2013, the trial court approved of the parties’ agreed provisional order. Pursuant to the provisional order, Davis was granted custody of K.S. and Summers was ordered to pay child support. The court then on its own motion held that the marriage was void as of the date of the “gender change” on the birth certificate because same-sex marriages are illegal in Indiana.

Davis appealed.  The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded, based on these facts, that a marriage between a man and a woman that was valid when it was entered into does not “automatically become void when one of the parties has his or her birth certificate amended to indicate a change of gender (sic).”

In Re Davis.

Ind. appeals court rules in gender identity case

Cossey v. the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)

In 1990, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. It reiterated that “gender reassignment surgery did not result in the acquisition of all the biological characteristics of the other sex” (§ 40 of the judgment). It also noted that an annotation in the birth register would not be an appropriate solution. The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 12 (right to marry and  found a family). Attachment to the traditional concept of marriage provided “sufficient reason for the continued adoption of biological criteria for determining a person’s sex for the purposes of marriage” and it was for the States to regulate by national law the exercise of the right to marry.

Cossey v. UK.

Rees v. the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)

A female-to-male transsexual complained that United Kingdom law did not confer on him a legal status corresponding to his actual condition.

The European Court of Human Rights held in 1986 that there had been no violation of  Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on  Human Rights. The changes demanded by the applicant would had involved fundamentally modifying the system for keeping the register of births, which would have had important administrative consequences and imposed new duties on the rest of the population. Furthermore, the Court attached importance to the fact that the United Kingdom had borne the costs of the applicant’s medical treatment.

However, the Court was conscious “of the seriousness of the problems affecting  transsexuals and of their distress” and recommended “keeping the need for appropriate measures under review, having regard particularly to scientific and societal developments” (§ 47 of the judgment).

The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 12 (right to marry and found a family) of the Convention. It found that the traditional concept of marriage was based on union between persons of opposite biological sex. States had the power to regulate the right to marry.

Rees v. UK.