Dead Firefighter Leaves Behind Transgender Wife. His Family Wants Her Kicked to the Curb

The vast majority of americans don't set stuff up to protect their loved ones until late in their lives.

Being a veteran of court wars, I certainly agree with your point about getting all the legal papers lined up before a disaster. But we have to understand that most people do not have a clue about such things. In fact, I think most folks are prone to believe that once love strikes anything written is not needed. I will add a caveat to this for understandings sake: Many a postoperative T woman that got the corrective surgery when they were into adulthood, tend to have a personality that partially goes through an adolescent stage. Adolescents tend to be starry eyed and dreamy. It is not an excuse to not cover your legal butt, but it can add to the lack of reality check into which love can seduce a person.
In any case, however you slice it, if Texas treats her equally under law, she will get a cut because she was his wife. However, I am going to stay up on this story, and my bet is that she will be discriminated against and screwed out of everything. I have seen it all to often.

I was not referring to a prenuptial agreement, but it is advisable at all times in my opinion.
The law in Texas, and how that law is interpreted will decide if she wins her day in court. The prosecution will contend that because Texas law stipulates that DNA is the legal arbiter of gender. Therefore, Niki with an XY chromosome will be in the eyes of the court, a man. Then the prosecution will then contend that her marriage to Mr. Araguz never had legal standing in a Texas court of law. Then they will ask the court to demise any claims by Niki to Mr. Aragus on the grounds that she was a legal stranger.
Watch! If I am wrong, I will eat my hat. But so very heartfelt thank you for your concern in this matter. I hope I am wrong, and you win the day!

What he did or did not do is an unanswered question. However, if the law in Tex-ass treated people with equality, then Nikki would be entitled to survivors benefits as his widowed wife, just like his kids will probably receive. Given similar cases in that armpit of the world, Nikki will lose her case in court. That is discrimination. African American, Chinese, Hispanic, Gay or Trans, everyone is entitled to equal treatment under law. However, not in Texas. F them. I know many really good Texans, but they do not walk, talk, and see things anymore.

No way, I'll go over it again. Where did it say he moved out 2 months prior to his death? The operation happened 1 day AFTER the wedding. Hum that is weird.

That is what his family says, but they have no evidence to prove what they are saying. Nikki says she and her husband were living together as man and wife. "Read into this story a bit more" carefully.
This is exactly the kind of thing families will say to smear the T all over the pages of everywhere. The family hopes their lies will win them the legal day. It might, this is Texas after all. Many people down there simply do not understand the concept of equal rights under the Constitution of the United States. Those who live this, know this to be an old song from bigoted mouths.

For society to decide who is a man or a woman, is no different then to decide who will be treated differently then others, who will be discriminated against. Each person defines themselves. No one has the right to say who you are.

You have just won the Jah-b-InI seal of compassion.

Good for 10,000 kisses. Payable by me, in my hometown on any surface of your choice. offer does not expire after curfew is sectors "R" or "M"

With an audience? Giggles!

This is truth!

There are some definite exceptions to that. And to clarify, if you die without a Will in Texas it can be a real time consuming pain in the ass for even a spouse to get hold of those assets.

One very big point is if he had any mental conditions, which could call into question his sanity, or ability to make decisions. If there is nothing like that in his background, and he did indeed leave a will then those assets assigned to his wife will most likely go to her. The benefits are a separate matter though. I'm pretty sure those will go to whoever you sign them over to, unless you have been found to be mentally incompetent.

UGH! this shit is so complicated that it makes me sick. Not much is really guaranteed, and what is can still be contested in court. I'm not very supportive of the trans-gendered, however they still deserve equal rights and considerations under the laws.

Life is a little rough now an then.

Rougher for some, than for others.

Well yes there will always be Us an Them.

Love is precious and worth honoring and rewarding. Vote up.

What gives them that right to freeze their accounts. Half of the money was hers at the very least.

Honestly these family members of his need to hung by a bridge by their genitals.

They argued for an injunction because she might try to jack all of their dear sons money instead of leting it go to his family...

Hello, you're clearly on the right side, but I disagree. It shouldn't be about tolerance. It should be about equality under the law. Let the haters, hate, but the law should protect, and treat everyone equal.

This tranny's in-laws are intolerant, and let them be that way, but the tranny widow should have immediate access to the legal things that every widow receives. Tolerance is powerless, equality under the law has weight and tangibility.

Peace.

Flex not only does your last line makes no sense whatsoever, but I think you missed the point entirely. Tolerance is how you do things. You either are you or aren't. Laws are made BY PEOPLE. If most people voted for a bigoted, intolerant law: that's on their heads. Laws can be changed. Don't hide behind them.

I think I see what you're saying. What I'm getting from your comment is that it shouldn't depend on any one person's tolerance, or lack there-of, but on the law. You're saying that the law should be solidly in favor of the wife who is the legal spouse, and screw what the in-laws think? Sorta..? If so, then, yeah, i totally agree!

I disagree. Tolerance is powerless. Laws that protect against race and sex discrimination were never a result of the kindness of voters. They were discovered to exist by judicial interpretation. People didn't vote desegregation into law, or the right for women to vote into law. The legal system took certain matters out of the hands of the masses.

Nobody questions these legal protections. They are simply law; therefore, tolerance is powerless.

Yes.

I'm not sure Dr. King would agree with that analysis of the 50's and 60's civil liberties movements.

I don't seem to remember things the way you present them.

Laws against interracial marriage were not struck down because of the tolerance of the people; just the opposite, they were upheld by the intolerance of people. The SCOTUS struck down every state law against interracial marriage in 1967. In this situation of race, the law trumped tolerance. Whether you tolerate the laws that allow interracial marriage, or not, it doesn't matter, because the law is more powerful.

In this situation with the tranny, it's not intolerance that prevents her from utilizing the rights that every widow receives, it's the law. Her in-laws are trying to use, and twist the law against her, but they should fail, because from the details printed in the source, she clears every hurdle to be a real, physical, psychological female.

The judicial system runs independent from the political process.

I kowtow to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

You're either trolling, or are delusional. Have fun with that.

Do you care to unpack your statement, know-it-all?

Not entirely. I just think that your seemingly existentialist take on the origins of laws sound somewhat convoluted in terms of how the masses influence them. I'd like to hear how you'd interpret the whole scenario with California's gay marriage 'law' that was first here and now gone and now back up on the ballot again...

That is just so sad. I hope that when i die my wishes are honoured.

I guess that depends on how you define gender. This person has obviously been altered physically to look like a woman and I'm certain she is a woman both mentally and emotionally. I'm sure her physical alterations allow them to have sex like a woman and man or I doubt her husband would have ever gotten involved with her. I suppose you could make the argument that she doesn't have ovaries, eggs and things of that nature but neither does a woman who's had a radical hysterectomy. Unless there is a specific law in Texas that forbids a transgender person from receiving benefits from their spouse, she is entitled to receive them. Even if there is a law that forbids it, it should be challenged.

I do find it amusing that people such as yourself, who it seems don't approve of gays, also don't like it when they undergo physical alterations to look like the sex that reflects the gender they really want to be.

Hmmmm I agree with everything until you suggest that gays (I can only presume this means those who are attracted to others of the same sex) are interchangeable with persons who are transsexual. They are quite different.

True but when it comes to questions of rights many of the fights are the same.

As has been noted before, the Law is an Ass.

Well, the law might be on her side if the defense can prove she was not born a man, she was born intersexed.

Rev pardon my french but you can go stick it where the sun don't shine. She has rights...they didn't have a gay marriage. You are so ignorant about the rights of others because you are blind to humanity and its diversity. You live in a black and white dialectic Christian created nightmare...perhaps not for you...but for millions of others who have to be subjected to the type of bigotry that follows it.

Knowing Texas they would not consider an intersexed person human. Scum bags. I say we give Texas back to Mexico. No wait, given the population growth of Hispanics, Texas will inherit some human behavior in about 20 years, when the Hispanics out number Bubba Red Neck. Viva La Mexican Americans!!!

Texas state interpretation of the laws on the books, is based on court president. I do not believe that there is actually a Texas law that mandates discrimination in this area. But I could be wrong, site such a law if you can, I am interested. Thanks!
But here let me help you to understand the human and even Religious ramifications of this issue.
There is viable measurable autopsied evidence that a Transsexual actually does have a brain that is the opposite gender from their body. Science even knows that at about six weeks gestation in the womb, the fetus, baby for you (lets not go there here), either does not get or does get a burst of testosterone from the mother. If the “child” does not get the testosterone, the brain will become female. It the “child” does get testosterone the “child” brain will become male. The process is called differentiation. A fertilized egg starts as one cell. After a time it goes through mitosis and replicates identical cells to itself, those cells then differentiate into the various tissues of the body, or organism. It starts with a nervous system, then heart and vascular system and continues to differentiate until all the organ systems of the body are up and running. Once tissues of the “baby” have differentiated, they cannot go back to becoming something else. Therefore, at six weeks, if the brain due to the lack of or addition of testosterone differentiates into a female brain or male brain, it will be that way for the rest of the person’s life, regardless of if the body is male or female.
I ask you this? Is a man no longer a man if he has an accident and looses his genitals? I think you would say he is what he is in his brain. To that end, gender is born in and remains in the brain at six weeks gestation. That can never be changed, through accident or physical appearance.
Texas does not want to recognize the hard facts of this science. The Texas courts are steeped in bigotry, stupidity, and yes to a great extent superstition. But the happy news is, now that you know the reality of the situation, you have a choice to believe the truth, or a fantasy. Ask yourself this as well. Is it possible that your God made Trans folks to test your faith with: “And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself.” Jesus told him. "Do this and you shall live!"
Jesus did not say, “What ever you were born with, you have to keep it, cancer, hair lip, herpes, crooked teeth, etc. Because God wants you to suffer and be so preoccupied with your suffering you are distracted from him, sayith the Lord.” LOL!
NO! Jesus did say: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
In the Hebrew, the esoteric meaning is that if you are hung up on a worldly thing, then how can you move on to serve God, or live a life akin to God’s will.
Hey it is your faith. BTW, the Catholic Church recognizes post op transsexuals for what they are, men or women, It considers the Gender Dysphoria to be a treatable condition, like any treatable condition. They will even marry a post op trans man and/or post op trans woman in their church to their opposite gender.
Iranian Shia Islam does the same thing.
They both recognize the need of the person to reduce their suffering so they can serve God or Allah, and not be preoccupied with the malady of their flesh. Again the pluck out the eye by Jesus recommendation.
These are facts. I hope they helped you. Jesus abhors a vacuum. Okay I made that up, but he obviously wanted us to change toward embracing love. Peace be with you! Salem.

don't hide behind your state laws which YOU helped pass (I assume you vote?). People like you use laws and religion and other arbitrary institutions to hide from the truth: which is that you are scared, intolerant, miserable human beings.

When you start accepting that YOU'RE the freak, maybe the world will start becoming a better place.

You should write More Your really good with words.

hmmmm ur from texas? then maybe current tv isnt right for you. i suggest you take urself to yahoo.com

That's assuming it occurred under false pretense. Considering the marriage lasted 2 full years and the family knows about the wife's gender choice, I would believe that the husband was fully aware of her gender change. Furthermore, unless she did not complete the gender change, and is still legally categorized as a male (or was at the time of the union), then this should not be recognized as a gay marriage because for all intents and purposes, the wife is legally female.

However, I am not aware if there are laws prohibiting gender changes in the state of Texas, so my premise may be incorrect.

It's always alarming - but not altogether surprising - how often those who wish to continue doing the wrong thing will pounce on the fact a thing is "the law". My attention is usually drawn to those who do not hesitate to throw out the law when that law seems to dictate something other than what is genuinely right. In our culture, those persons are the one's most deserving of their own liberties, most respectful of the liberties of others, and most deserving of my friendship.

You make a good point. I believe medical science may be able to help her in that regard. There are indeed individuals who are of ambiguous gender who may on the surface appear "male" or "female" but are not so clearly categorized on thorough examination. I know this from personal experience.

As I researched the process, once a court has allowed both a name change and a gender change for matters of record, one is legally a female - or male if changing in the other direction. I can't speak to how Texas does things precisely, but this is the way it works in other states. If Nikki was legally "female" at the time of marriage, it was a legal marriage and the family has no legal grounds to contest it.

Still, as I've indicated elsewhere, regardless of what Texas law says in these matters, it's blatantly obvious what the family hopes to accomplish here. The court should do what is genuinely right for Nikki and the man's other heirs. Also, his will - assuming he had one - should not be trivialized for the sake of immature minds making a point about "those people" like Nikki.

I know from experience that american culture can be quite monstrous in that regard. So much for "land of the free" and "liberty and justice for all". People are too focused on "under god" fantasies.

you do know that when he returns, the church will be the first to be judged?

most insurance policies like this have a seperate payout for children of divorced parents.

Oh children, my soft spot. YES, the children come first, but Nikki deserves an ample amount as well. Lets hope there is enough to go around.

hesitantly voting your comment up...

Your a better man than Me