Here's something I discovered while surfing today...

"Transsexual marriage case opens in US
Ann Rostow, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
Wednesday 17 November, 2004 11:53

A transgender woman is on trial in America this week after refusing to pay a $500 fine for filing an allegedly false marriage licence application.

Sandy Gast, 49, checked herself off as female on forms last February in the state of Kansas, as she prepared to marry Georgi Somers, 63.

Making matters more complicated, Somers is also a transgender woman, but she elected to present herself as a male for the purposes of the paperwork.

According to Court TV, Somers' daughter e-mailed authorities in Leavenworth to alert them to a pending same-sex marriage.

Then, two days before the March 20 wedding date, sheriff deputies arrived at the couple's home, charged Gast with a misdemeanour for "lying" on the application and carted her off to jail. There, the Leavenworth Times reports, she was processed for six or seven hours, and was strip-searched by a male deputy.

Gast was pre-operative at the time, but has since had surgery to correct her sex.

Eight months later, Gast is in court to contest the criminal charge and the hefty fine that went along with it.

At her side is attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who is offering his services pro bono on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The case, Irigonegaray told Court TV, "is a serious look about what makes someone a man, what makes someone a woman." Gast, he told the Lawrence World Journal, "has been criminally charged and is being criminally persecuted for no other reason than the fact she believes herself to be a woman".

On Monday, County Attorney Frank Kohn called a single witness on behalf of the state, the county clerk who took the application. Kohn then rested his case, the Times reports, leaving the stand to Irigonegaray and Gast. The defence presented a professor of genetics, Dr Eric Vilain, who testified that gender is fluid, and should be defined legally by the individual.

Vilain was followed in the witness chair by Sandy Gast's therapist, Ronald McCorkel, while Gast herself was scheduled to testify on Tuesday.

The defence will have to overcome a difficult precedent in Kansas state law. In 2002, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that a MTF woman could not inherit her late husband's multi-million dollar estate, effectively nullifying the marriage of Marshall and J'Noel Gardiner after the fact.

The court ruled that gender was unerringly determined at birth, and could never be altered in the eyes of the law."

What does the team think?

Hugs,

Katie x

I'm curious as to what will eventually come of this in the wake of the right wing trying to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment. I truly fear for the next four years. This will definitely reach the Supreme Court sometime in the future.

Katy,

Thank you for the info.

Is there a link to the particuler story on the site?

The story regarding the two Kansas legal actions and the ifirst court ruling bring the question of same sex marriage full circle, and casts light on the subject from an entirely different perspective.

The application of biblical correctness into the marital status and life choices of the two individuals, should give pause to anyone involved in the transsexual community, Americans especially, and more especiially Christian transsexuals, as what are the ramifications of the same sex marrige ban.

As in the past, no member of a targetted group, nor any member of a society in which targetting of certain people for special treatment is tolererated, is ultimately safe.


.......................................................
"Life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness."

Gender is not determined at birth only physical sex and that is determined at about 6-8 weeks with the Testosterone push. Before then and without it a feotus is in the default female form (reason why men have nipples as they are formed before Testosterone push). A persons gender is more determined by how society see's them than by their genes. Dress a baby in pinks, pastels and put bows in their hair and people will see a girl not a boy.

Saying all that the couple in question were niave in the belief that they could get away with this. As much as we all disagree with discrimination on any grounds the law of the land at present states it is illegal for 2 people of the same physical sex to enter into marriage. I hope the jury decides in favour of the defendant and sets a precedent that gender is not set at birth but can be shaped by society, I somehow doubt it though.

Hearing this comes from Kansas does not suprise me in one bit as this is one of the states in the US that has banned the teaching of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in favour of the Story of Creation, which makes it virtually impossible to teach genetics, biology, geology, life sciences etc. Without that fundamental principle of scienctific thinking how can our arguement be fought? If Kansas is going to go by 'The Book' there is no way forward.

I personally think that the law is an ASS in this case! I mean,if two people(TV/TS..etc) love each other that much then why the hell shouldn't they be able to make that commitment to each other.This just goes to show what total bigots Bush and his cronies really are.This is the 21st century in case you hadn't noticed america...not the 19TH!! get a life,and stop hassling those who just want to be happy in each others company. love maria xxx

Its not only down to the goverments on this matter, the church and religion has a big influence on this subject too.....hugz Julie xx

Well, Merideth, two things that came of the attempt at same-sex marriage ban constitutional amendment are:
1. The Congress stomped it to death.
2. I voted for Democratic Congressmen and state representatives for the first time in my life.
Let's hope the message gets through.

I believe that my gender had been determined before I was born, unfortunately my physical sex did not match. Gender isn't what society decides you are, it's what you know you are.
I'd like to see the law changed so that people of the same physical sex be allowed to marry, and why not people of the same gender identity too. In this day and age the law should not be based on religion, so what legal reason can there be for disallowing a union between any 2 people?

Wendy, thanks for reminding me of those two facts. While the right wing is trying to use their backwards view of religion to oppress others, this might very well bite them in the ass. Am I suprised that George W. Asshole moved immediately to push for the amendment? I think we all know the answer to that.

I also like Alex's take on gender. Yes, while I do fear for what they might try to do over the next four years, I also think they know they're up for a fight. That's why they want an amendment so much - they're difficult to pass and even more difficult to repeal (only one amendment was ever repealed).

My wife actually suggested that I forego trying to be a full-time college teacher and instead take up the TG cause.

Here's an update:

"US judge dismisses transgender marriage case
Ann Rostow, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
Thursday 18 November, 2004 12:41

American County District Judge Frank Stewart ruled Tuesday that male-to-female post-operative transsexual bride Sandy Gast was not guilty of "false swearing", when she filled out a marriage licence application as a female last February.

The Kansas transwoman was arrested on a misdemeanour charge of fraud, and was facing a fine of $500 for her action.

Gast had been planning to marry fellow MTF Georgi Somers on March 20 in Topeka. Indeed, the pair held a commitment ceremony on that date, but their licence was denied, and their marriage is not legally recognised in the Jayhawk state.

Somers filled out her part of the application as a male, and did not run afoul of any Kansas laws.

But two days before the wedding date, sheriff deputies arrived at the couple's house and hauled Gast down to the county jail for six hours of humiliating processing, including a strip search. The authorities had been tipped off to the "fraud" by Somers' daughter.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Gast contested the charge and went to trial before Judge Stewart.

Without addressing the core question of how sex is determined under the law, Stewart ruled that Gast may not have intended to defraud the state, and that she may have truly believed she was female.

Since the state had no way of knowing what was on her mind, the judge said, the charge of lying could not be proven. The prosecutor seemed content with the ruling, telling the Associated Press that the judge didn't dispute that Gast was legally male, but only raised the matter of intent.

Gast's pro bono lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, said he would have appealed the case all the way up to the state supreme court if necessary. Had that been the situation, Irigonegaray would have challenged a 2002 high court ruling against a MTF widow who was barred from inheriting her husband's $2.5 million estate.

In that case, the Kansas justices ruled that gender is fixed at birth and may not be changed. As such, they decided that the marriage of Marshall and N'Joel Gardiner was void from the start and that the estate should fall to Marshall Gardiner's son."

Hugs,

Katie x

Thanks for the update, Katie. One thing I need to mention, and I'm sure it was on many of your minds:

While winning the case is something to rejoice, losing it may have, in some respects, also done some good because of the appeal process. For instance, in the Scopes Trial back in the 1920s, Clarence Darrow wanted, and even told the jury, that Scopes should be found guilty for the sole purpose of appealing the case and hopefully seeing the law overturned.

However, being found not guilty is wonderful and gives out hope that progress can POSSIBLY be made.

For us patriotic Americans who believe in the spirit of the American Revolution, and not the packaged apple pie and church stuff that's being served up -

from my perspective Bush (the Bush group) are sharpies in that they understand how to secure a power base. They are using the Christian Right as a power base, and must pay political homage to them. The proposed ammendment is just that.

Fundamentalists Christians is a group who have made a "leap of faith," in their belief in the Bible And Jesus As Saviour; and therefore if they can be led to believe in something that can't be proven or seen, theoretically they can be convinced of anything that supports their belief.

It is not even that circuitous. The Christian right "Does Not Care About Anything Else Other Than Their Religous Point of View, And That It Be Proselytized in America, and Throughout The World."

It was much the same in Germany, with the fundametalist Christians there being used to support Hitler's militaristic programs. The Jews ( and other groups, homosexuals, drug users, leftists. intelellectuals, etc. were only icing on the cake, and the Nazis used things such as existing European antisemitism as proof of the seriousness of their intent to purge the heathen from Germany as a means toward the development of a morally and ethnically pure Christendom.

The fear in the US should be that any group that is not Biblically sanctioned is subject to targeting; if only to demonstrate the seriousness of the administration's intentions.

Of course, once detention laws are passed they can, and will, be used to round up anybody who speaks up.

This TG law case and how it reflects upon the same sex marriage bans, shows the potential harm that can be done by using the Christian movement.

Meridith,

I'll drink to the repeal of bad Constitutional Amendments.