Hearing today on bill aimed at preventing transgender people in Texas from marrying

dead firefighter's transgender wife
Nikki Araguz

A bill that would prevent some transgender people in Texas from obtaining marriage licenses will be heard by a Senate committee this afternoon.

The bill is an apparent response to the case of Nikki Araguz, the transgender widow from Wharton County. Araguz was sued by the family of her husband, a firefighter who was killed in the line of duty, to prevent her from obtaining death benefits.

Senate Bill 723, by Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, would remove a court order of sex change from the list of identifitying documents that can be presented to obtain marriage licenses in Texas.

The Transgender Education Network of Texas sent out an alert this morning asking people to call the members of the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence and urge them to kill the bill in committee. The committee members can be reached at 512-463-4630. The hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. and can be viewed live here. Here are instructions for calling from TENT:

IDENTIFY: yourself by name, any organization you represent, and town from which you are calling
EXPLAIN: “I am calling to oppose Senate Bill: SB 723 as it is an injustice to trans identified people in the state of Texas” Be polite and concise, concentrate on 1 or 2 talking points you wish to make.
REQUEST: A written response to your phone call.
THANK: the person who took the phone call for their time and consideration.
Repeat for each member of the committee
In the Austin area: Go by the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 1:30 pm room 2E.20 (Betty King Cmte. Rm.) of the Capitol and submit a testimony card AGAINST SB 723.

 

—  John Wright

Gay divorce case appealed to TX Supreme Court

‘J.B.’

More than two years after he filed an uncontested petition for divorce, attorneys for the gay Dallas resident known as “J.B.” have appealed his case to the Texas Supreme Court.

J.B. and his husband, H.B., were married in 2006 in Massachusetts before moving to Dallas. After they filed for a divorce in Dallas County in January 2009, Democratic District Judge Tena Callahan ruled in October 2009 that she had jurisdiction to hear the case, calling Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott promptly intervened and appealed to the 5th District court, which overturned Callahan’s decision.

On Feb. 17, attorneys at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld, which represents J.B., filed a Petition for Review of the 5th District’s ruling by the Texas Supreme Court.

“This Court should grant review because this case involves questions of great importance to Texas state law, which likely will recur with increasing frequency until this Court provides guidance,” the attorneys wrote in their Petition for Review. “Over 28% of the U.S. population lives in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage or its equivalent is permitted. Texas is one of the nation’s fastest growing states—attracting thousands upon thousands of migrants each year, including couples from those states that permit same-sex marriage. Thus, there is an increasing likelihood that same-sex couples legally married in another state will move to Texas and eventually seek divorce in Texas. Whether Family Code section 6.204 prevents these same-sex couples who were legally married in another state from obtaining a divorce in Texas, and whether this violates the U.S. Constitution, are questions important to the state’s jurisprudence, and should be, but have not yet been, resolved by this Court.”

To read the full petition for review, go here.

—  John Wright

Why some Iowans will vote to fire judges (Hint: careful examination of jurisprudence not #1 basis)

The so-called “Iowa For Mob Rule” “Iowa For Freedom” group has an interactive map feature where locals can leave their name, location, and a brief comment about why they are planning to vote against the retention of three of the seven justices who found gender discrimination in civil marriage law to be unconstitutional. Comments that give us some insight into what’s guiding this rage:

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.03.18 Pm

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.03.30 Pm

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.03.37 Pm

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.03.58 Pm

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.04.46 Pm

Screen Shot 2010-09-22 At 3.05.16 Pm

Add Your Name to the Map [Iowa For Freedom]

So we have a whole lot of God, mixed in with fundamental misunderstanding of the term “opinion” as it applies to the judiciary (similar to the misunderstanding of the word “theory” in science), and topped off with the unbelievable view that out of all of our enemies foreign or domestic, it’s judges like the Iowa seven who are America’s “single biggest enemy.” This in a one-sided political campaign where the judges aren’t going to pause their lives and spend their cash on defending their record. So essentially we have Iowa For Freedom using fake Sandra Day O’Connor quotes, giving false civics lessons about the people supposedly always getting decide all minority rights, and waging an all-out war against sitting ducks who have done nothing more than base their decision on their learned reading of the constitution rather than their own, largely faith-based personal whims.

And here I thought corn was the only Iowa export able to give me indigestion.




Good As You

—  John Wright