portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

actions & protests | gender & sexuality | social services

measure 36 enforcement!

If it's good enough for the Pope....
Hi y'all--

I'm a KBOO programmer who occasionally focuses on GLBT issues; I did so this morning. But there was a topic I didn't have time for.

As we all know, Measure 36 passed in Oregon. So-- county clerks are now proscribed from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. My question is: how do they know they're complying? My spouse is a beautiful bearded dyke--she has a goddess body, but she gets "sir"-ed all the time. It occurs to me that others in her, ah, position could pass as male.

And I've been transitioning for years male-to-female; in the last year, I've mostly been accepted as female, among strangers. But the Operation hasn't happened, and won't, until I save up $23,000 cash or so (whew!).

What's a county clerk to do? The law's the law, right?

You may have heard that there's a toilet-shaped chair in the Vatican, where the new Pope has to sit with his skirt up, so the committee can ascertain that he ain't a she, like Pope Joan. Well, the bigots behind Measure 36 have no way of proving that a couple applying for marriage are "a man and a woman" unless they do something similar. So I intend to raise a hue and cry (what is a hue in this context, anyway?) about sneaky queers going to the Chapel without any proof that the weenie and the winkie are there in Godly proportions. What do you think--crotch check at the marriage office? With a firm pinch, to make sure no rubber prostheses are involved.

Just being helpful

In Jeebus' name

DR 03.Mar.2005 14:48


What your ID states as your gender is what they will accept you as.

You're one sick puppy 03.Mar.2005 15:03

and I love it

when will the job announcement be posted?

That's all well and good 03.Mar.2005 15:42


But the license wouldn't be valid, so these couples wouldn't really be married. If they won't let you make decisions for you incapacitated spouse, I guess it doesn't matter much whether they gave you a piece of paper.

In any event, I know Oregon doesn't require blood tests for marriages anymore, but they could re-institute that requirement and check for Y chromosones.

legally female 04.Mar.2005 23:04

andrea pdx

my partner and I were legally married in Multnomah County in the summer of 2001. At the time my partner was male and I was "legally female"

I had had a gender reassignment surgery in the year 2000 and on the advice of my lawyer, I filed a legal petition in Washington County which was accepted which says that my sex is changed from male to female. Obviously my basic chromosome composition did not change.

So at the time of our marriage my partner conformed to the criteria that our marriage was composed of one person who is "male" and one person who is "female".

However not being satisfied to leave well enough alone, my partner since that time has also under gone gender reassignment surgery and similary filed a legal petition that declares that her sex under Oregon law is female.

So now hypothetically we are a married "same sex" couple.

Currently there is nothing in the Oregon marriage statutes that provide for the annulment of a legal marriage when there is a change of gender in the marriage.

However, we of course are concerned that Measure 36 would be used to annul our marriage as well as the other marriages in Oregon which include transexual partners.

Thus far our experience with medical insurance companies has been that they initially will deny our applying for coverage as a couple because their polices only cover spouses and not domestic partners.

When we give them a copy of our Multnomah County marriage certificate from 2001 and explain the history of our relationship, the companies, thus far, do not try to take it upon themselves to rule that our marriage is
invalid. Since we are able to produce the legal document that shows that we can be defined as spouses then, the companies, thus far, have issued us medical coverage.

(One of the reasons that we did decide to get married was because of the experience that I had early in 2001 when I was hit by a car and wound up being incapacitated for four months.

We had paid an additional premium to have loss of income due to an accident covered by our policy. However we discovered at the time of my accident that because of the wording of the policy, that coverage did not apply to me because my partner and I were "not related by blood or by marriage".

The logic of the policy was that, the policy covered me as a driver of our vehicle in an accident situation. However the clause that might of covered my loss of income due to an accident when I was a pedestrian was qualified by the phrase "related by blood or by marriage". Based on that criteria the insurance company said that I was out of luck.

In order for me to be covered, I would have had to have taken out a second policy in my name. Though I was able to be included in my partners insurance as a driver, my insurance coverage for other aspects of policy was limited because we were not married.)