Family challenges fallen Texas fireman's marriage to transgender woman

But a trashy 20 year old woman who ONLY wants a dying 80 year old man's money....that can happen in a snap. What a bunch of shit. Piece of shit family.

Looks like some family members were left out of the will. Money tears familys apart.

If she had a legal sex change, she is no longer a man, but legally a woman. The relatives who are suing are going to lose--even in Texas.

Seems as though that fireman loved playing with hoses at home as well as at work.

What he did was hes business.

They call them transsexuals for a reason, no amount of surgery or hormones can change a gender. If the firemand did not know prior to the marriage, she commited fraud not telling him and should get nothing.

Walt wrote:

They call them transsexuals for a reason, no amount of surgery or hormones can change a gender. If the firemand did not know prior to the marriage, she commited fraud not telling him and should get nothing.

You are absolutely correct. No amount of drugs, therapy, or surgery will change gender. That's the problem. Transsexual people have genders, a subconscious sense of which sex they are, that do not match their bodies. Thus, trans women are primarily women and vice versa, no matter what their plumbing looks like. Therapy, drugs and surgery WILL , however, change the body to match the gender that science has found impossible to modify, thus relieving the debilitating and excruciating pain of gender incongruence and dysphoria.

Mrs. Araguz says she underwent the therapies needed to match her body to her existing female gender before and just after her marriage. In addition, she had all of the papers that defined her legal sex changed to reflect reality as well. She was and continues to be a woman.

Her husband's ex-wife and his parents are acting out of greed - pure and simple. Instead of being able to get half of the benefits for the kids (which they, of course, would control) they want it ALL. Never mind this poor woman's twice wounded grief or the needs that she might have to continue her own life. I think those who brought this horrible law suit are disgusting and ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

ok, first of all "so what", you are an unbelievably horrible person for talking crap about someone who was killed like that and for that I think you can go to hell.
second of all, it matters what you were born as. "Nikki" was born a man and may have had a sex change, but the chromosomes are still XY= MALE. He's a man and that means the marriage cannot be legal. It doesn't matter what he LOOKS LIKE, no matter what kind of surgeries he has done, how bigg his boobs are, or whats between his legs, he's still a man. And aside from that, I can honestly say that if my husband had kids before we were married and he was killed in a fire (he is a firefighter also) that I would not feel right taking that money from his kids. if anything, I would MAYBE take enough to pay off (or atleast partially)bills (funeral expenses, a vehicle he had, etc.) and then give the rest to his kids. I'm grown, have a job making my own money and no amount of money in the world would make me feel better that my husband died and would rather his kids be taken care of first; so I think she's wrong for trying to get that money anyway. I don't blame his family at all for trying to get the money for his boys.

wrong wrote:

ok, first of all "so what", you are an unbelievably horrible person for talking crap about someone who was killed like that and for that I think you can go to hell.
second of all, it matters what you were born as. "Nikki" was born a man and may have had a sex change, but the chromosomes are still XY= MALE. He's a man and that means the marriage cannot be legal. It doesn't matter what he LOOKS LIKE, no matter what kind of surgeries he has done, how bigg his boobs are, or whats between his legs, he's still a man. And aside from that, I can honestly say that if my husband had kids before we were married and he was killed in a fire (he is a firefighter also) that I would not feel right taking that money from his kids. if anything, I would MAYBE take enough to pay off (or atleast partially)bills (funeral expenses, a vehicle he had, etc.) and then give the rest to his kids. I'm grown, have a job making my own money and no amount of money in the world would make me feel better that my husband died and would rather his kids be taken care of first; so I think she's wrong for trying to get that money anyway. I don't blame his family at all for trying to get the money for his boys.

Chromosomes don't always determine gender/sex. It's an old assumption that science has proven to be incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Mikki isn't trying to take anything away from Mr Araguz's kids - either way they get half of the death benefits and while the lawyers are spinning this in the media to make people think the other half would go to the kids if the lawsuit wins, the court papers are written up do his mother, Nikki Araguz's mother in law, gets the money. Even so, if the kids get all of the money, which they don't deserve, all of it will be controlled by the ex-wife and the mother in law until the kids hit their 21st birthday. There is a big payoff for the ex and MiL if the rule against Ms Araguz.

This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to use legal trickery to rob Nikki Araguz of her rightful legacy from her husband. Nikki Araguz is a woman, if her chromosomes are XX or XY or XXY or XYY or any other possible combination and was legally married to the man she loved, a man who was tragically snatched away from her by an unfortunate accident. We don't get to vote on who you say you are, neither do you have a vote to define who she is.

I agree with the fact that whatever is going on here, should not have been made public for the kids sake and for the sake of the name and reputation of this fallen firefighter. And I don't know for a fact what he/she was born as and unless you have access to her personal files and records, neither do you. I'm simply saying that if she was infact born a man, then that marriage cannot be legal. And I know from a somewhat inside source that when Araguz's attorney informed him of the paperwork he had showing that Nikki was born a man, that Araguz immediately filed for divorce; which leads me to believe that he was not aware of this situation when they got married and that he was not ok with it, like Nikki is saying he was.

And my whole view on who "deserves" the money, I look at it as, Nikki is a grown man/woman and was making it on her own before she met Thomas so she doesn't "need" this money to continue and make it through the rest of her life. His kids however, with this money could be taken care of for, maybe not the rest of their life, but for a good part of it; and unless Thomas Araguz was a dead beat dad, I think thats probably the way he would have wanted it anyway.
So I am in no way trying to sounds like I know everything or that I'm right and your wrong or anything else like that. I was simply voicing my opinion because as I said before, unless someone has access to some insider files and records, thats all any of us on here have is opinions.

wrong wrote:

I agree with the fact that whatever is going on here, should not have been made public for the kids sake and for the sake of the name and reputation of this fallen firefighter. And I don't know for a fact what he/she was born as and unless you have access to her personal files and records, neither do you. I'm simply saying that if she was infact born a man, then that marriage cannot be legal. And I know from a somewhat inside source that when Araguz's attorney informed him of the paperwork he had showing that Nikki was born a man, that Araguz immediately filed for divorce; which leads me to believe that he was not aware of this situation when they got married and that he was not ok with it, like Nikki is saying he was.
And my whole view on who "deserves" the money, I look at it as, Nikki is a grown man/woman and was making it on her own before she met Thomas so she doesn't "need" this money to continue and make it through the rest of her life. His kids however, with this money could be taken care of for, maybe not the rest of their life, but for a good part of it; and unless Thomas Araguz was a dead beat dad, I think thats probably the way he would have wanted it anyway.
So I am in no way trying to sounds like I know everything or that I'm right and your wrong or anything else like that. I was simply voicing my opinion because as I said before, unless someone has access to some insider files and records, thats all any of us on here have is opinions.

It was the mother and ex-wife that went public first. They don't care about the kids, no matter what they are saying. They care about the money. In addition, the press has been anything but fair with this story - the usual when it comes to trans people, and trans women especially. The facts will be for the court to decide. Up until then it's all propaganda.

What the doctor said Nikki Araguz was when she was born is irrelevant. She is a woman, she was legally married and she deserves the same treatment any other grieving widow of a fallen hero deserves. If she were cisgender this wouldn't have even come up. The whole case is built not over Nikki Araguz's greed or lack thereof, it's built on trans/homophobia.

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
It was the mother and ex-wife that went public first. They don't care about the kids, no matter what they are saying. They care about the money. In addition, the press has been anything but fair with this story - the usual when it comes to trans people, and trans women especially. The facts will be for the court to decide. Up until then it's all propaganda.
What the doctor said Nikki Araguz was when she was born is irrelevant. She is a woman, she was legally married and she deserves the same treatment any other grieving widow of a fallen hero deserves. If she were cisgender this wouldn't have even come up. The whole case is built not over Nikki Araguz's greed or lack thereof, it's built on trans/homophobia.

I know it was the mother and ex that did all this, and they are completely 100% wrong for doing it the way they did it. It should not have ever been brought out into the public. And I know, as does anyone that watches/listens to the news, that the media is being unfair; thats the media for ya. And your right, nobody's opinion matters but that of the judge who will be deciding this case. But like I said before, I know that when Thomas' attorney showed him paperwork and told him about this whole situation, thats when Thomas immediately filed for divorce; so thats why I think she's lieing or hiding something because if he was "OK" with it like she says he was, then why did he file for divorce when he found out? thats my whole deal. The rest is plain and simple, if she infact was a man when she was born then no, she is not entitled to those benefits because their marriage isn't legal. If she was a woman when she was born, then she is entitled to the money and my opinion on that is completely personal and a "moral" thing (going back to the boys deserving that money, but whatever....:~/ But your right, if she didn't have this "issue" it never would have been brought up. That is the whole reason for all of this, thats what is at question. But soon enough,everyone will have an answer; some will be happy, some will not, but it will all be over.

wrong wrote:

<quoted text>
I know it was the mother and ex that did all this, and they are completely 100% wrong for doing it the way they did it. It should not have ever been brought out into the public. And I know, as does anyone that watches/listens to the news, that the media is being unfair; thats the media for ya. And your right, nobody's opinion matters but that of the judge who will be deciding this case. But like I said before, I know that when Thomas' attorney showed him paperwork and told him about this whole situation, thats when Thomas immediately filed for divorce; so thats why I think she's lieing or hiding something because if he was "OK" with it like she says he was, then why did he file for divorce when he found out? thats my whole deal. The rest is plain and simple, if she infact was a man when she was born then no, she is not entitled to those benefits because their marriage isn't legal. If she was a woman when she was born, then she is entitled to the money and my opinion on that is completely personal and a "moral" thing (going back to the boys deserving that money, but whatever....:~/ But your right, if she didn't have this "issue" it never would have been brought up. That is the whole reason for all of this, thats what is at question. But soon enough,everyone will have an answer; some will be happy, some will not, but it will all be over.

Sorry, you got it wrong. They NEVER filed for divorce. Where did you get that? It's not true!

Trans women are women. Intersex women are women. The whole case being brought against Ms Araguz is based on a bigoted denial of scientific fact.

Texas law now says you can get a marriage license after a sex change
according to a 2 year-old amendment to the Texas family code.
-
Below is part of the requirements for a legal marriage that applies to transsexuals.
If a transsexual has had surgery and has any of the required legal forums of ID showing she is female, she can legally marry a man. Same apples to a F to M who wishes to marry a woman.
If a M to F has legal id showing her to be male, she can marry a woman. Hence a same sex marriage.
This is a loop hole in the law.. It trumps the 1999 ruling about Chromosomes
We shall see how it turns out in this case..
-
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA... .
Sec. 2.001
(b)  A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.
-

Sec. 2.005.  PROOF OF IDENTITY AND AGE.  (a)  The county clerk shall require proof of the identity and age of each applicant.
(b)  The proof must be established by:
(1)  a driver's license or identification card issued by this state, another state, or a Canadian province that is current or has expired not more than two years preceding the date the identification is submitted to the county clerk in connection with an application for a license;
(2)  a United States passport;
(3)  a current passport issued by a foreign country or a consular document issued by a state or national government;
(4)  an unexpired Certificate of United States Citizenship, Certificate of Naturalization, United States Citizen Identification Card, Permanent Resident Card, Temporary Resident Card, Employment Authorization Card, or other document issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security or the United States Department of State including an identification photograph;
(5)  an unexpired military identification card for active duty, reserve, or retired personnel with an identification photograph;
(6)  an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a bureau of vital statistics for a state or a foreign government;
(7)  an original or certified copy of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certificate of Birth Abroad issued by the United States Department of State;
(8)  an original or certified copy of a court order relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;
(9)  school records from a secondary school or institution of higher education;
(10)  an insurance policy continuously valid for the two years preceding the date of the application for a license;
(11)  a motor vehicle certificate of title;
(12)  military records, including documentation of release or discharge from active duty or a draft record;
(13)  an unexpired military dependent identification card;
(14)  an original or certified copy of the applicant's marriage license or divorce decree;
(15)  a voter registration certificate;
(16)  a pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or another authorized agency of the United States;
(17)  a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(18)  a temporary driving permit or a temporary identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety; or
(19)  an offender identification card issued by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
(c)  A person commits an offense if the person knowingly provides false, fraudulent, or otherwise inaccurate proof of an applicant's identity or age under this section.  An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.

I got that from someone that knew Thomas....I don't know. I don't know for sure, and unless you are his attorney, I don't think you know for sure either. Either way, it doesn't matter what I think, or you think, or anyone else thinks. All that matters is what the Judge thinks and what he decides to do. As I said before, I don't want to argue about this with you (or anybody else for that fact), I was just stating my opinion like everyone else that gets on here. None of us know the TRUE FACTS and never will because Thomas isn't here to give them to us. What will be will be and thats it.:~)

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, you got it wrong. They NEVER filed for divorce. Where did you get that? It's not true!
Trans women are women. Intersex women are women. The whole case being brought against Ms Araguz is based on a bigoted denial of scientific fact.

Keep in mind that the ONLY people who will get more money as a result of the lawsuit are the lawyers who will take their fees out of the awarded benefits.

They did file for divorce... Thomas wanted nothing more to
Do with her he had moved out and had to call the police
To get the crazy he/ she from his house... A couple days before he died.. I witnessed that myself... I also saw the birth certificate.. Whw was born a man and she has even been on talk shows like jerry springer....before the sex change....

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
Chromosomes don't always determine gender/sex. It's an old assumption that science has proven to be incorrect.

OMG so much phail. Chromosomes are how the zygote transcribes gender, ie, if you don't have chromosomes, YOU DO NOT HAVE A VIABLE HUMAN, NOR DO YOU IN FACT HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL. Which then leads us to, chromosomes are the method by which the zygote determines gender.
These homosexual activists are disgusting. Simply disgusting. I'll bet most of the homosexuals posting on here have been to mexico or jamaica to butt rape a 6-yo boy. Disgusting.

Elliott wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG so much phail. Chromosomes are how the zygote transcribes gender, ie, if you don't have chromosomes, YOU DO NOT HAVE A VIABLE HUMAN, NOR DO YOU IN FACT HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL. Which then leads us to, chromosomes are the method by which the zygote determines gender.
These homosexual activists are disgusting. Simply disgusting. I'll bet most of the homosexuals posting on here have been to mexico or jamaica to butt rape a 6-yo boy. Disgusting.

Try using the computer to learn the truth instead of pushing old, disproven knowledge. Chromosomes may determine physical sex, in most cases, but they do not necessarily do so all the time. Did you watch the video I linked to about the woman who has XY (male) chromosomes? And I never said anything about someone not having any chromosomes at all. Where did you get that one from?

Your assumption that there are "homosexuals posting on here" is inaccurate as well. Ms Araguz is a heterosexual woman. Besides your mention of a disgusting and inflammatory allegation, your concern over the sexual orientation of the participants of this lawsuit and those who are posting here has nothing to do with the issue. Why are you trying to change the subject?

What you learned back in school about DNA and genetics was incomplete. Doctors and scientists have learned more about it. You need to learn a bit more before posting.

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
Try using the computer to learn the truth instead of pushing old, disproven knowledge. Chromosomes may determine physical sex, in most cases, but they do not necessarily do so all the time. Did you watch the video I linked to about the woman who has XY (male) chromosomes? And I never said anything about someone not having any chromosomes at all. Where did you get that one from?
Your assumption that there are "homosexuals posting on here" is inaccurate as well. Ms Araguz is a heterosexual woman. Besides your mention of a disgusting and inflammatory allegation, your concern over the sexual orientation of the participants of this lawsuit and those who are posting here has nothing to do with the issue. Why are you trying to change the subject?
What you learned back in school about DNA and genetics was incomplete. Doctors and scientists have learned more about it. You need to learn a bit more before posting.

If a man who has had a sex change operation to become looking like a woman,does not reveal this fact to a prospective husband prior to marriage, it is grounds for annulment in some (if not most) states for entering fraudulently into a marriage contract.