Quote from: amy2003 on August 09, 2011, 06:26:44 PM
Thanks, Karen. I hadn't thought of marriage. I assume I would have to have it changed to marry a guy.
Yes, it will make it easier to have a heterosexual marriage. But there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient, and it certainly won't be sufficient in the entire United States.
Some states use the birth certificate. Most, however, use *other* criteria, or at least do when it goes into court.
Let me explain. Basically, let's say someone made a mistake on someone's birth certificate. They were born with XY chromosomes, typical male body parts. But the State/hospital/etc screws up and issues an "F" on the birth certificate. Let's also say the State DMV doesn't check "sex" on the birth certificate, but rather looks at the obviously male person standing in front of them and issues a DL to with an M. Same for Social Security. That person marries in a state where a DL is adequate proof of identity (not sex, just identity) and marries heterosexually (marries a woman, born with typical "female" chromosomes and body parts). 10 years later, the marriage is contested (child custody, wills, insurance settlement, who knows what else could cause this...).
Should the court say, "Well, the birth certificate said "F", so this marriage is invalid? Of course they shouldn't - and I'd suspect (that said, I'm not a lawyer) that if adequate documentation is presented to show this person was "M", then the birth certificate would essentially get ignored. After all, it's just one piece of evidence, and doesn't have any legal standing as stronger evidence (at least not in any jurisdiction that I know about).
So, what I'm saying is that an "M" or "F" on any government document doesn't in itself prove anything. It may *help* to prove it, and it is certainly good to have all legal documents reflect your gender, so that they can't be used against you, but that is no gaurantee. I know of no state that specifies what constitutes "Male" or "Female" (they don't say "The birth certificate is used to determine if someone is male" or anything similar). Nor do the feds.
Quote from: amy2003 on August 09, 2011, 06:26:44 PM
I guess I should call Vital Statistics again and clarify how the BC will look to onlookers once amended. And find out what documentation the court asks for when you apply for a marriage certificate.
Just remember, on marriage, that presenting documentation does not make a marriage legal - even if that documentation is accepted by the clerk (or whoever). An obvious example would be if I decided to have a polygamous marriage to second wife - if I didn't present the document indicating I was married, and I lied on the application (I say "never married"), and I marry in a state other than where I got married to my current wife, I would absolutely be issued a marriage license! But it wouldn't be legal, regardless. The sex requirement most states have is similar - you as a couple *have* to be "one male + one female" - nevermind what your documentation says, the *actual* state of your gender/sex has to be one male and one female, or it could be considered an invalid marriage (and you may even be subject to criminal penalties).
This just plain stinks because in almost all places, nobody has defined what a male or female is - not even the courts. So it's basically up to the random judge that hears the case should your marriage ever be contested (think about things like life insurance - they'll have reason to contest it even if you don't).
So there is no safe heterosexual marriage with one post-transition partner in the US - no safe marriage that would be seen as valid in all 50 states. Regardless of your documentation.
That said, I would think having the birth certificate, DL, Social Security record, private records at banks and employers, etc, all reflect your proper gender would make the argument much stronger that you are exactly who you say you are.
In the meantime, the shortest path to fixing this particular legal mess (made worse through DOMA, since prior to DOMA one state *had* to respect a marriage license issued in another - now they don't if they decide it is a homosexual marriage) is to make gay marriage legal in all 50 states, with DOMA repealed sooner rather than later. It's ironic that heterosexuals need gay marriage to allow their heterosexual marriage to be recognized, but that's sadly the current state of the law as I understand it (not being a lawyer).
I hate to be a downer. I'm married to a woman who wasn't always recognized as such, and we're in a heterosexual relationship and it boils my blood to think that in some areas of the US we would not be considered legally married should it ever be challenged. Right now, it's only small pockets that would consider it an invalid marriage - most of the country it is truly legally undefined (it could go either way in a challenge), with some small pockets that would based on prior case law consider it valid. At the end of the day, I say it's better to publicly and loudly proclaim my love for her and commitment to her, even if I risk it being declared illegal one day, than to not do that. And I'd tell anyone else to do the same. But I wouldn't want them to think that if certain documentation has the right letters on it, then they are safe from all possible challenge. But I also would say that we are on the right side of history and it's only a matter of time before these concerns are eliminated.
Also, for what it's worth, I couldn't find my birth certificate before getting my marriage license. They were fine in that state with a DL or passport. But every state will be different.
So...I'd say amend it if you can, and, one day, when it is allowed, get it changed and reissued correctly. Obviously if you don't have the resources to do this you may need to wait - very few people need to see your birth certificate).