-
Thomas Araguz III and Nikki Araguz.
Thomas Araguz III and Nikki Araguz.
The parents of a Houston-area firefighter who died in the line of duty are trying to prevent his transgender widow from receiving death benefits, The Houston Chronicle reports. Chad Ellis, an attorney for the firefighter’s parents, claims he didn’t find out his wife was born a man until a few months before he was killed in a fire in July. But the man’s widow, Nikki Araguz, says he knew she was transgender before they married in 2008:
The lawsuit, slated for Friday in Wharton County District Court, leans on 1999 state case law prohibiting same-sex marriage and maintaining a person’s gender forever remains the same as it was at birth, Ellis said.
“We are not blazing new legal ground here,” Ellis said.
Nikki Araguz declined Sunday to discuss her gender history, and insisted that her husband knew everything about her personal life when they married in August 2008. She also said the couple was not separated.
“We had a completely honest marriage, a 100 percent loving, honest marriage,” she said. “I am grieving the loss of my husband and best friend.”
The 1999 case law referenced in the Chronicle story is Littleton v. Prange out of San Antonio. But our understanding is that this case isn’t binding for courts in other parts of the state.
Clearly if Mr. Araguz knew his wife was transgender, she should be entitled to death benefits. But what about if he didn’t? Does it really matter?
UPDATE: The Transgender Foundation of America has issued the following statement:
TFA Demands Justice for Wharton Widow
Houston, Texas – July 19, 2010 – The Transgender Foundation of America (TFA) is sad to learn of the untimely death of Thomas Araguz III, a heroic firefighter who was killed in the line of duty. Additionally, we are saddened to learn of a second tragedy unfolding in Wharton County involving the Araguz’s grieving widow and her in-laws.
Immediately after the death of Araguz, the in-laws came out of the woodwork in an effort to defame the marriage of a fallen hero. The in-laws have claimed that Mrs. Araguz is a post-operative male-to-famale transgender woman and as such, they claim the marriage is invalid and that they are entitled to the married couple’s home, belongings and financial assets.
“It is an affront to common decency that Mrs. Araguz’s in-laws have turned this tragedy into a money-grab” said Cristan Williams, the Executive Director of TFA . “I have spoken with Nikki and I find the actions of her in-laws repugnant. I call upon common sense and decency to prevail in this case. Mrs. Araguz should be left alone to grieve the death of her heroic husband with the support of her friends and of her church.”
At the heart of this attempt to swipe the property and money of a grieving widow lies the assumption that the chromosomes of Nikki Araguz must be XY and that chromosomes equal sex, a long debunked test that virtually all medical experts and sports authorities have abandoned. In 1999, the Olympic Committee along with many other federations dropped chromosome testing as a viable sex test all together.
The flawed ideology Mrs. Araguz’s in-laws wish to use in their bid for the couple’s belongings is based on a 1999 San Antonio ruling that declares that the position of the court is that women like Mrs. Araguz may only marry other women, which would also deny the right of marriage to all inter-sexed citizens of the State of Texas.
“TFA hopes that the Texas judicial system will quickly dismiss this frivolous attempt to rob Mrs. Araguz of her rightful possessions” said Williams. “I cannot imagine the tremendous pain that she must be going through, being attacked by her own family during her time of mourning.”
Good question John. If this was a heterosexual couple and the wife was a lying, cheating slut before her husband died, would she still get his benefits? We all know the answer to that. The integrity of the spouse should not be a factor in this lawsuit. It should be the integrity and validity of the relationship that should matter. I just hope she has some kind a trick in the bag b/c she’s pretty screwed.
First of all the Media should shut up and stop broadcasting this. Thomas did not know that IT was a male at the time and when he found out left IT and filed for divorce. And IT doesn’t deserve anything. Thomas’s boys deserve everything from their father. This IT wanted to take everything and leave Wharton County. No one is thinking about these boys by posting and televisioning all this. These little children have to go to school and don’t need all this trash slandered out here. These are innocent little children whom deserve everything. They parents of Thomas Araguz and the mother of the children are looking out for the best interest of the boys. So stop with the garbage Media.
The Littleton v Prang decision denied Ms. Littleton the right to sue for wrongful death becasue the legislature had not passed laws stating that post-operative MTF transgendered persons should be considered female for purposes of marriage. The Jurist who penned the decision literally cried out for the Texas legislature to provide such legislation.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature voted unanimously to amend the law to specifically provide that a Court Ordered gender change can be submitted by marriage license applicants to establish the identity of the individual. This clear rejection by the Texas Legislature of the decision in Littleton v Prang renders that decision no longer prevailing law in any jurisdiction. I hope that Ms Araguz’s attorneys realize that this caselaw has been nullified by statute.
Under Title 1, Subtitle A. Marriage, Chapter 2, Sub-chapter A, REAL TEXAS LAW (not the non-binding CASE law of Littleton v Prange) has settled this matter. A VALID marriage certificate can be given if the individual presents “(8) an original or certified copy of a court order relating to the applicant’s name change or sex change;”
This means that REAL Texas law recognizes the right of transsexuals to marry. The suit brought by the in-laws is as bogus as the rest of the lies they are spreading.
And, can I just recognize that Cherie Robertson is a troll who doesn’t have a clue?
Just a note, the legislation did not take affect until 2009 and they were married in 2008. The law was not retroactive was it?
Wow, referring to a human being as “IT”… I guess that’s the first step. To de-humanise.
Maybe Cherie is just misinformed though, rather than being a vicious little bigot. She says it’s “all about the children”. So how come the grandma’s claims don’t mention the children, not once? According to the court documents, “grandma” wants all the joint assets for herself – apart from the half that under Texas law go to the children anyway, regardless of the outcome of the case. And that includes all of Ms Araguz’s savings, as she was the principle earner in the relationship, and paid the child support. The deceased was a *volunteer* firefighter, not a paid one.
Grandma’s lawyers first claim that all the joint assets are joint marital property, indivisible, so after the children have received their share, should go to one person because they’re from a marriage, not a business partnership . But then they say that their is no marriage after all., so all the assets should go to “grandma”..They want the marriage to be valid and void simultaneously.
That’s why they’ve been lying, as lawyers have been known to do, saying one thing to the media, but another thing in court. Read the transcripts, Cherie.Or maybe you don’t let mere facts get in the way of your opinions.
Carl – by the same token, the constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage post-dated the marriage too, did it not? It’s arguable that both the amendment, and the legislation, merely clarified an existing situation.
Court orders are given in cases of small children with ambiguous genitalia not confused perverted adults.
I feel saddened that a family of a fallen firefighter would rather focus on what he left behind instead of grieving his death and letting his WIFE do the same! Additionally, there is no considerable way he couldnt have known about her gender and this shouldnt even be an issue since it was HIS choice to marry her regardless of her gender. They were in love hence they were married!