Article in the New York Times

[yms]

An interesting article in today's (April 28) New York Times entitled: "Through Sickness, Health and Sex Change."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/fashion/27trans.html

[CaptLex]

Ah so many issues we still have to deal with . . . if only all the different states would get their acts together. It would be cool to have an irrefutable national law that protects us, our relationships and our families. Maybe in my lifetime - I hope. :Pray:

Thanks for the article, Yvonne. :)

[Sharon]

I was ready to post this story also because I found it very inspirational to read about couples who have successfully (so far) dealt with the myriad issues they have been presented with, all for the simple reason that they love another and want to remain legally married. They have valid fears about how their status may affect them in different situations -- not only the legality of their marriage licenses, but on what could happen if one or the other needs to go to an emergency room, on the IRS recognition of joint tax returns, etc. -- and how their status is different depending on what states they live in or visit.

All in all, I found the story excellent in the way it was written and presented by the reporter. And, like Lex, I feel it will be a joyous day when every state can accept these marriages as valid as any other marriage.

[Annaliese]

Thank for posting, it show how far we have come, and how long the road is ahead for all of us.

Hug Anna

[GypsyKaren]

Interesting story, especially now that I think I'm about to face that issue. I've been trying to get my ex-employer to change the gender on my records so I can get it done for my insurance, I can't get female specific tests or treatments done till I do. They've been stalling me for a month now, saying that their system doesn't recognize same sex marriages, so it's in their legal department. I was told it's there to see what the effects will be on their system if they "re-hard code" it, which is total bullshit, it's simple software and all they have to do is what everyone else has done, change the "M" to an "F". I'm sure the real reason for the stalling is they're conferring with the state of Indiana about the legality of my marriage now, and I fully expect them to challenge it in order to get out of paying benefits for Kat.

Karen Starlene :star:

[sandra-leigh]

I'm sure the real reason for the stalling is they're conferring with the state of Indiana about the legality of my marriage now, and I fully expect them to challenge it in order to get out of paying benefits for Kat.


Unfortunately, it seems that the possibility of a court challenge is real, at least for some employeers and some states. I posted a specific case reference within the last couple of weeks, in which an employee moved to a new state and the employee cut off partner benefits on the grounds that the new state had a DOM (Defence of Marriage Act) that banned "same-sex" marriages. The details were a bit different than your case, but if you haven't done so already Karen, I'd suggest you slog through the material on Karen Cross's AOL page about cross-dressing case law (in one of my recent threads in the Media section), as the case law demonstrates that historically decisions have gone both ways -- mostly being determined by which decision would be least favourable to the TG/TS involved :sad: If it gets near court you are going to want to know the precedents, and Karen Cross has actively researched them.