News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Shana A on April 04, 2012, 08:34:46 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Court rules Minn. DOMA doesn’t apply to some transgender marriages
Post by: Shana A on April 04, 2012, 08:34:46 AM
Post by: Shana A on April 04, 2012, 08:34:46 AM
Court rules Minn. DOMA doesn't apply to some transgender marriages
By Andy Birkey
Tuesday, April 03, 2012 at 1:53 pm
http://www.americanindependent.com/215223/court-rules-minn-doma-doesnt-apply-to-some-transgender-marriages (http://www.americanindependent.com/215223/court-rules-minn-doma-doesnt-apply-to-some-transgender-marriages)
A federal court judge in Minnesota ruled on Monday that a marriage between a man and a transgender woman was legal under Minnesota law and that a health insurance plan could not drop the woman from her husband's health benefits. The judge said that because one person is male and the other legally transitioned to female, the couple qualifies as legally married under the state's Defense of Marriage Act.
The case hinged on the marriage of Christine and Calvin Radtke. The two were married in July 2005 in Goodhue County in southeastern Minnesota. Calvin works for United Parcel Service and enrolled himself and his wife in his union's health plan. Christine had legally transitioned from male to female several years earlier.
But after Christine's physician mentioned her transgender status in her medical file in 2008, the union's health plan terminated her coverage.
By Andy Birkey
Tuesday, April 03, 2012 at 1:53 pm
http://www.americanindependent.com/215223/court-rules-minn-doma-doesnt-apply-to-some-transgender-marriages (http://www.americanindependent.com/215223/court-rules-minn-doma-doesnt-apply-to-some-transgender-marriages)
A federal court judge in Minnesota ruled on Monday that a marriage between a man and a transgender woman was legal under Minnesota law and that a health insurance plan could not drop the woman from her husband's health benefits. The judge said that because one person is male and the other legally transitioned to female, the couple qualifies as legally married under the state's Defense of Marriage Act.
The case hinged on the marriage of Christine and Calvin Radtke. The two were married in July 2005 in Goodhue County in southeastern Minnesota. Calvin works for United Parcel Service and enrolled himself and his wife in his union's health plan. Christine had legally transitioned from male to female several years earlier.
But after Christine's physician mentioned her transgender status in her medical file in 2008, the union's health plan terminated her coverage.
Title: Re: Court rules Minn. DOMA doesn’t apply to some transgender marriages
Post by: Flan on April 04, 2012, 10:40:41 PM
Post by: Flan on April 04, 2012, 10:40:41 PM
It actually doesn't apply to any marriage where a partner has legally transitioned before the time of the marriage contract (which in this case, satisfies the MN law stating marriage = one man and one woman)
http://www.outfront.org/news?module=news&showitem=219
http://www.outfront.org/news?module=news&showitem=219
QuoteThe Court rejects the Fund's reliance on decades-old Title VII cases for the proposition that "sex" is narrowly defined as an immutable biological determination at birth. These cases are not relevant to the case at hand because they are analyzing the meaning of "sex" in Title VII, not under Minnesota law, and the opinions specifically base their conclusion on a close analysis of Title VII and its particular legislative history.
An individual's sex includes many components, including chromosomal, anatomical, hormonal, and reproductive elements, some of which could be ambiguous or in conflict within an individual. See In re Lovo -Lara, 23 I. & N . Dec. 746, 752 (BIA 2005). The assigned sex of an individual at birth is based only on observation of anatomy at birth, which itself may change when the individual reaches puberty. Id. at 753. Here, Ms. Radtke is anatomically and hormonally female. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to invent a narrow federal definition of "sex" based on the sex assigned at birth and impose that construction on a Minnesota statute.
Title: MN federal judge rules that DOMA does not apply to trans marriages
Post by: Shana A on April 06, 2012, 10:09:42 PM
Post by: Shana A on April 06, 2012, 10:09:42 PM
Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:00 PM PDT
MN federal judge rules that DOMA does not apply to trans marriages
by rserven
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06/1080935/-MN-federal-judge-rules-that-DOMA-does-not-apply-to-trans-marriages (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06/1080935/-MN-federal-judge-rules-that-DOMA-does-not-apply-to-trans-marriages)
Chief US Judge for the Minnesota District Michael J. Davis has ruled that Minnesota's DOMA law does not apply to legal marriages entered into by transgender individuals and that therefore a union health care plan could not drop Christine Radtke from coverage under her husband's health benefits.
Having transitioned from male to female between 1986 and 2003, Christine married Calvin Radtke in July of 2005 in Goodhue County in southeastern Minnesota. Calvin works for UPS and is therefore a member of Miscellaneous Drivers and Helpers Union Local #638 and he enrolled himself and his new bride in the union's Health, Welfare, Eye and Dental Fund (hereinafter, the Fund) plan.
In 2008 Christine's physician mentioned her transgender status. Someone at the Fund didn't like that. The Radtke's were informed that as of April, 2010 Christine would be dropped from the health care plan.
MN federal judge rules that DOMA does not apply to trans marriages
by rserven
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06/1080935/-MN-federal-judge-rules-that-DOMA-does-not-apply-to-trans-marriages (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06/1080935/-MN-federal-judge-rules-that-DOMA-does-not-apply-to-trans-marriages)
Chief US Judge for the Minnesota District Michael J. Davis has ruled that Minnesota's DOMA law does not apply to legal marriages entered into by transgender individuals and that therefore a union health care plan could not drop Christine Radtke from coverage under her husband's health benefits.
Having transitioned from male to female between 1986 and 2003, Christine married Calvin Radtke in July of 2005 in Goodhue County in southeastern Minnesota. Calvin works for UPS and is therefore a member of Miscellaneous Drivers and Helpers Union Local #638 and he enrolled himself and his new bride in the union's Health, Welfare, Eye and Dental Fund (hereinafter, the Fund) plan.
In 2008 Christine's physician mentioned her transgender status. Someone at the Fund didn't like that. The Radtke's were informed that as of April, 2010 Christine would be dropped from the health care plan.