Idaho GOP Passes Measure to Ban Transsexuals from Marrying ANYONE

[Ian David]

<snip>

UPDATE at 6/25/10 1:21:29 pm:

And that isn’t even the craziest thing going on at this GOP convention. They’re also calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, and pushing a measure which would prevent transsexuals from marrying: GOP delegates call for repeal of 17th Amendment; push for further definition of marriage.


<snip>

In other GOP Convention news, A panel of GOP delegates at the state party’s convention passed a measure Friday to define marriage as a bond between a “naturally born” man and woman, effectively barring transgenders.

Bannock County delegate Ralph Lilling says his amendment to the state party’s platform will help further protect the traditional family unit.

But Donna Montgomery, a delegate from Kootenai County, argued that the additional language was unnecessary because people from Idaho understand man is a man and a woman is a woman.

The measure still has to go before the full convention for approval.

More:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36621_Idaho_GOP_Approves_Plan_for_Militia

[David__77]

1. Is it saying that? I don't read it that way.

A man who became a woman (transsexual) could still marry a woman, as Idaho law would consider her a "man" because she was designated as such upon birth.

[luvspeas]

3. So they approved same sex marriage????...

:rofl:

[GodlessBiker]

4. Indeed. Like Texas. Sex at birth is all that matters.

[luvspeas]

2. All those poor people delivered by C-Section....

I guess they can never marry either!

[ShadowLiberal]

5. I don't see how that law could be enforceable

What the stupid Idaho GOP doesn't realize is that you could still marry someone of the opposite sex, then get a sex change. You can't automatically nullify a marriage just because the gender of one of the people changes, so there's a loophole built right into the law. Not only that, but you could marry right next door in some other state, and Idaho would have to recognize that marriage, it's in the constitution (which is why DOMA is unconstitutional, even if activist conservative judges pretend otherwise).

Plus, you can't nullify existing marriages that would meet that requirement just by passing a law, that's been the way it always was from the beginning of the united states, through previous tightening of marriage laws to keep certain couples from marrying.

[heyheyhey]

7. That is some strong-ass Jim Jones brand tea

One of the justifications of the 17th amendment repeal is the whole Blagojevich ordeal. They say the several people in the state legislature should be accountable for those two positions. But the problem with the Blagojevich fiasco is that you had 1 guy with all the power. Sure maybe state legislature could be the one to choose a Senator in cases like that, but you're still letting a small group decide what's best for a much larger population. I don't see how the Tea Party would want this. They are so hypocritical and uneven on their "core values". Since when is limiting the peoples control of anything in the government a good idea?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evasporque]

8. I guess people born from fertility treatments cannot be married....

Intersex, Or C-Section...only naturally birthed man or women...


Someone ate too many paint chips as a child...