Judge rejects divorce for transgender pregnant man

TXgolfer said:
Happens a lot even with hetero marriages to. People move, the state they reside in has different laws tan the state they were married in. I had a friend whose wife left him and went to live in another state. Neither filed for over a year hoping they would work things out. They didn't, and then the wife filed in her new state. It was a huge mess.
Click to expand...

I worked with a young girl, she was 19/20? she had to get a divorce and she never even got married. She and her boyfriend decided one year to file "married" on their taxes, for the better credits etc, then they broke up. She went to file the next year but discovered she couldn't file "single" until she got a divorce. She was so confused....she had to call up her and ex and tell him they had to get a divorce, I happened to be there for that. It was hysterical. I guess if you declare yourself married on legal documents you are married. Whether you actually got married doesn't matter. No marriage certificate? Don't matter. Weird huh?
 
ambrosia said:
I worked with a young girl, she was 19/20? she had to get a divorce and she never even got married. She and her boyfriend decided one year to file "married" on their taxes, for the better credits etc, then they broke up. She went to file the next year but discovered she couldn't file "single" until she got a divorce. She was so confused....she had to call up her and ex and tell him they had to get a divorce, I happened to be there for that. It was hysterical. I guess if you declare yourself married on legal documents you are married. Whether you actually got married doesn't matter. No marriage certificate? Don't matter. Weird huh?
Click to expand...

It is a mess. This is why I am against government sanctioned marriage all together.
 
TXgolfer said:
It is a mess. This is why I am against government sanctioned marriage all together.
Click to expand...

as well on affiliate marriage mess, hurt on mess upset family/friend or ex gf/boyfriend screw up
marriage on ruin life! people convinced reason affiliate marriage they hurting.

people want to divorce husband or wife depend relationship

depend on court to strictly law!
 
TXgolfer said:
Happens a lot even with hetero marriages to. People move, the state they reside in has different laws tan the state they were married in. I had a friend whose wife left him and went to live in another state. Neither filed for over a year hoping they would work things out. They didn't, and then the wife filed in her new state. It was a huge mess.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, I have heard about similar issues because states have different marriage/divorce laws - 50 laws.

TXgolfer said:
There was no argument. The point was that we were looking at things from different perspectives. You were looking at the issue with a very narrow scope, focused only on one case and one part of the case. I was focused on the big picture.
Click to expand...

Ok, the couple in article is very confusing - that why court see them as end up in same sex marriage rather than opposite sex marriage.
 
TXgolfer said:
It is a mess. This is why I am against government sanctioned marriage all together.
Click to expand...

It means marriage/divorce should be privatized - take government out of marriage/divorce?

I'm curious - when marriage is privatized so who will resolve the disputes in divorce case?
 
So if they got married in Hawaii and moved out of Hawaii and if they want to get a divorce, does that mean they have to go back to Hawaii to get a divorce? That's screwed up. Ridiculous!
 
Same here, my thoughts on this one was never just gay issue, it is whole marriage law, and not every state have the laws on same page. This is why I kept saying, they go by the book and can't do anything less or more than the book (Law books) itself. That leads to confusion? Oh yes! Welcome to corrupted political world in the United States.

TXgolfer said:
There was no argument. The point was that we were looking at things from different perspectives. You were looking at the issue with a very narrow scope, focused only on one case and one part of the case. I was focused on the big picture.
Click to expand...
 
Foxrac said:
It means marriage/divorce should be privatized - take government out of marriage/divorce?

I'm curious - when marriage is privatized so who will resolve the disputes in divorce case?
Click to expand...

There would be no legal divorce either.
 
TXgolfer said:
There would be no legal divorce either.
Click to expand...

It means no resolve with dispute, such as house, car, appliance, custody of child, etc.

There are some couples divorced for good reason, such as domestic violence, irresponsibility (spouse is lazy, refuse to find a job, refuse to help - zero respect) and family abuses.

I doubt that end the government sanctioned marriage will happen in anytime - too complicated.
 
Foxrac said:
I doubt that end the government sanctioned marriage will happen in anytime - too complicated.
Click to expand...

Neither will this man/woman's divorce. I feel for the children.....as if their lives weren't confusing enough.....

Laura
 
Lau2046 said:
Neither will this man/woman's divorce. I feel for the children.....as if their lives weren't confusing enough.....

Laura
Click to expand...

If I'm married so I don't want to have a child.

Some married couples have no child.
 
I would like to point out that criminal law and civil law are two different things.
I have personally seen judges in civil court make rulings that invent new law on top of old law that was specifically put in place to stop judges from inventing new law.
This means that someone seeking resolution by the law is screwed out of a huge chunk of money and enough stress to float rocks. Especially for the party who actually should have benefitted by actual application of the present law.
This judge sounds like he is actually doing what he is supposed to do, which is find the solution that benefits the children while following the present law.

I personally care about the parents only as far as their ability to take care of the innocents they have brought into the world. If they are in their self created limbo for the rest of their lives I really do not care. The children had no choices while the parents exercised the most extreme choices they could.
I commend the judge.
Whether or not the government should stay out of marriage law is a whole other question. I would like to refer TX Golfer to the most classic example of a country with law but no government: Iceland between the time the settlers came to the place and homesteaded as refugees from the reign of King Harald in Norway to the time they asked for Norway to rule them. People do the same things over and over. It was a disaster without the complications we enjoy today.
 
It's confusing to me "why" he was born a woman...but switched to a man...but kept his reproductive organs...so he could have children.....:hmm:....believe he/she is the only human who has ever done something like this ??.....I really don't get it.....
 
rockin'robin said:
It's confusing to me "why" he was born a woman...but switched to a man...but kept his reproductive organs...so he could have children.....:hmm:....believe he/she is the only human who has ever done something like this ??.....I really don't get it.....
Click to expand...

Neither did the judge. I've read other articles about this and he/she didn't have a gay marriage, but claimed to be hetrosexual - a "man" at the time of the marriage...from the waist up only....and yes, he/she kept everything from the waist down as nature gave him/her...and wants to be considered male. Yet men don't have babies and are biologically incapable of birth for obvious reasons other than what's below the waist. So...since it wasn't technically a gay marriage in their views, they want the court to grant them a divorce as a hetrosexual couple, which they weren't. The court doesn't recognize the union as hetrosexual and therefore can't grant their petition because the medical documentation and his/her getting pregnant doesn't support it....so it was two women that married and the union itself wasn't recognized. I think it works out fine for the both of them. They can just pretend it didn't happen and move on but they want the judge to say a man with a woman's anatomy is really a man and that's just not true.
 
Lau2046 said:
Neither did the judge. I've read other articles about this and he/she didn't have a gay marriage, but claimed to be hetrosexual - a "man" at the time of the marriage...from the waist up only....and yes, he/she kept everything from the waist down as nature gave him/her...and wants to be considered male. Yet men don't have babies and are biologically incapable of birth for obvious reasons other than what's below the waist. So...since it wasn't technically a gay marriage in their views, they want the court to grant them a divorce as a hetrosexual couple, which they weren't. The court doesn't recognize the union as hetrosexual and therefore can't grant their petition because the medical documentation and his/her getting pregnant doesn't support it....so it was two women that married and the union itself wasn't recognized. I think it works out fine for the both of them. They can just pretend it didn't happen and move on but they want the judge to say a man with a woman's anatomy is really a man and that's just not true.
Click to expand...

One of the best explanations I've read so far!....Thank You...and let's hope this never, ever happens again..it's too freakish.....
 
Back
Top