Wow! Check this out. This is what happens when you try to make too many laws deciding who can marry who: From the Chronicle: Houston couple plans Texas' first legal lesbian marriage By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 2000 Houston Chronicle A lesbian couple from Houston plans to legally marry in Texas next month, a prospect that has stymied the Texas Christian Coalition and its social conservative allies. Next Wednesday, Robin Wicks and Jessica Wicks plan to travel to San Antonio, where the county clerk promises to grant the two women a marriage license, their attorney says. The Sept. 16 wedding would be the state's first legal recognition of a lesbian marriage, and it would be legal because one of the women used to be a man and still has male chromosomes. Robin Wicks was born a woman, Robin Manhart. Jessica Wicks was born a man, Grady Roland Wicks, and had a sex-change operation. Robin legally changed her name to Wicks because of their love for each other and their desire to wed. The two women declined to be interviewed but agreed to be photographed and have referred all questions to their attorney, Phyllis Randolph Frye. Bexar County clerk Gerard C. Rickoff confirmed he will grant the women a license. He cited a San Antonio appeals court ruling that determined, as he put it, "you are what you are by your creator." The two women were turned down in Harris County three weeks ago, when the Houston clerk cited the Texas Family Code's prohibition against same-sex marriages. The appeals court decision in San Antonio, however, gave Frye the idea to go there to seek the license. In the San Antonio gender case last year, the 4th Court of Appeals blocked a wrongful death medical malpractice suit filed by a widow, Christie Lee Cavazos Littleton. The court negated the widow's seven-year marriage to the deceased man beccause she had been born a man and undergone a sex change operation. The court said the marriage wasn't legal because sex is determined by chromosomes, not by medically induced genital alterations. Even the Texas Legislature's staunchest opponent of same-sex marriage says he sees no legal impediments to the marriage of Robin and Jessica Wicks. "What a twisted world we live in," said state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. "I agree that gender is based on chromosomes, so I think that would set precedent, and I can't disagree with that. I don't know anything legislatively you can do about that. You strike up the most bizarre situation in the world, and the law's not always able to contend with it." Attorney Frye, a transsexual herself, said that if chromosomes matter but genitals don't, the court has cleared the way for same-sex marriages involving partnerships in which one person was born a male and the other a female. "We are trying to point out how stupid the Littleton ruling was," said Frye, who represented the appeal of Littleton, who lives in San Antonio. Frye said the Texas Supreme Court has twice refused to consider the arguments in that case, but the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in September whether or not to hear it. "We're making it an issue with this (Wicks) marriage because the conservatives thought, with the Littleton decision, the prevention of same-sex marriage was secure," Frye said. "We're going to start encouraging all the transgendered people in the state who are in gay and lesbian relationships to take advantage of the Littleton decision and start seeking marriage licenses." Dianne Hardy-Garcia, executive director of the Lesbian-Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, said the Wicks marriage breaks new ground in Texas and apparently nationally. "This is really new, and I don't know of any other case," she said. "Certainly Phyllis Frye out of Houston has been at the cutting edge of transgender activism for many years. Texas has one of the most outspoken transgender communities in the nation." Rep. Glen Maxey, D-Austin, the only openly gay member of the Texas Legislature, said the unusual case in Houston shows exactly why government should not be getting involved in the private lives of its citizens. "Because government got involved in something they should have never gotten involved with, you have these absurdities and seeming irrationalities," he said. On this point, the Texas Christian Coalition appears to agree. Although the group believes in the sanctity of the male-female marriage, the Wicks situation boggles the mind, said Chuck Anderson, the coalition's executive director. "Leave it to lawyers to come up with all these situations," he said. "It's creepy. I don't think anyone could even speculate in their wildest dreams that this could come about." ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
strange how gay marriage and playgirl come so close in two different topics ------------------ President of nothing
Jeff I think it's just plain wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to get married. ------------------ [This message has been edited by steviewonder (edited August 30, 2000).] [This message has been edited by steviewonder (edited August 30, 2000).]
Jeff, It's not a "lesbian" wedding. One of them is still a man, and always will be one, no matter what they do to the exterior of their body. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
Why? The only reason why gay marriages are illegal is because Christians believe that it is wrong and those who practice homosexuality will go to hell. Well, if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes loving someone of the same gender and if freedom of expression means having a partner that shares your gender, so be it. We have no right to judge. I just find it funny that conservative organizations tried desparately to close every loophole and keep same-sex marriages from happening, they inadvertently opened the door for them to occour legally. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
DREAmer: They are choosing to live their lives as women whether their chromosomes belie that or not. This person removed his/her genetalia as a way of demonstrating his/her desire to become a woman. Technically, she is still a man, but, we have no right to judge a person's decision to live they way they want and, if they choose to live, behave and be medically altered as a woman, we should be respectful of their decision no matter what our beliefs on the issue. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, I'm not judging anyone's lifestyle. I'm just saying, this person is a man regardless of what they think, and this shouldn't be a big controversial issue, because this is a hetero marriage in my book. I haven't listening to all the issues on both sides regarding same-sex marriages, but I tend to lean slightly against it. I'm not one to make rash decisions. I, for the most part, listen to other's opinions, pick the ones I like and make them mine. If I don't find an opinion I like from anyone else on a topic, then I do a little research myself and make one up. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
What's to research? either you're against it like steviewonder or for it like Jeff. It's pretty much black & white to me. stevie...any particular reason for your feelings? how does it affect you if it happens?
A Christian marraige with "holy" matrimony I understand to be meant between a man and a woman according to my understanding of the Bible passages I have read on the subject. "Lawful" matrimony on the other hand I guess could possibly have the potential to allow for gay marriages but i don't know if it does currently or if it ever will. que sera sera ------------------
outlaw, I would like to hear both sides of the debate, that's what I meant by "research". What are the reasons for not wanting to make it legal, and what are the reasons for wanting to make it legal. I lean towards 'not' because I don't think it's right. But, that's just my opinion... as of now. That's why I'd like to know more, before I would say I have a definite unwavering opinion on this issue. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
Well I'm glad you like to keep an open mind DREAMer but you must realize that many people do not think it is "right" for you to be in an interracial marriage either. Even if you don't think it's right, how does it possibly affect you to the point where it should be illegal?
What possible argument can there be against it other than, "I do not like/agree with it." Do not bring religion into it because the courts should have nothing to do with it. Besides, even if it is based on religion, it still comes down to the above sentiments. Wife-beaters marry all the time. Sex offenders get married all of the time. Is a male/male or female/female marriage any worse than this, or anyone else's concern at all? ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
rimbaud it's really difficult to leave religion out of this issue because religion plays a crucial role in most marriage ceremonies...or at least it's intended to. if the religious aspect of matrimony is rejected then there is no logical or ethical reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. ------------------
Damn straight, rimbaud. These are people who love each other and care about one another just like any other relationship. The inability to have a legal marriage means that people cannot formalize their bond, which is why most of us get married in the first place, or have the benefits that other marriage couples enjoy like shared insurance. If you don't like it, DON'T DO IT but no one has the right to decide who people should love or with whom they can have relationships. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
lots of people get married at city hall. i can accept churches refusing to marry 2 people based on religious reasons but not the government.
I thought marriage was a symbol of your love for someone and the union you share with that person, nothing to do with religion. ------------------ Discombobulation Imminent
Thank you, Smeggy. WHAM: I think we have pointed it out but there are both logical and ethical reasons to get married even if it is not recognized by religion. From a logical standpoint, it is cheaper to live as two than one. Not only does marriage erase many of the needs of individuals (two sets of furniture, appliances, etc) which can certainly be done by just living together, it also provides insurance if one spouse works and the other doesn't or if one spouse recieves benefits and the other doesn't. It also allows legal protection for one spouce in case of the other's death. From an ethical view, it is the aknowledgement of two people's love for one another in public. It legally binds two people together which can deepen committment. When two people live together, no matter who they are, the lack of a definable committment can take its toll on the relationship over time. By solidifying it, you are telling not only the world but yourself and your partner that you are in this for the long haul. I think the point I make is that we do not have a right to decide because we are not a religiously-ruled society. We are a society of law first and religion second. No religious belief is supposed to be allowed to tell us how we can live our lives or make our laws for us in America. And, the belief that homosexuality is wrong originates in the Bible. Again, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. That is the freedom we all enjoy. However, if you are homosexual, you should be afforded the same opportunity and protection under the law as the rest of the country. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited August 31, 2000).]
I think it's great. Smeggy is right-on...marriage has nothing to do with religion nor should it have anything to do with a person's sexual orientation. Anything that puts the schmack to any group like the Christian Coalition, any group that constantly tries to impose their version of morality on everyone, gets the thumbs-up from me. ------------------ Bring It!!
Well said, Jeff. The spirit of marriage has changed. It originated as a religious ceremony meant to unite the couple with God. There has since been more secular interpretations. The government should offer equal opportunities for every cititzen, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. ------------------ Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me...you.
Actually, marriage really has never had much to do with religion. It originated as a social/political union for the purpose of exchanging commodities, or strengthening families, etc. Adding the church was a way of solidifying even more the transactions taing place. Everything in modern Christian marriages is based on 19th Century Victorian concepts, where the woman was still just a small part of te exchange. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
