Alex Blaze

Onion on transgender gay marriages

Filed By Alex Blaze | June 04, 2009 11:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Marriage Equality
Tags: marriage, onion

Yeah, let's not pretend like the Religious Right makes a clean distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity.

Did like the graphs, though, since Silly Graphs + Contentious Issue = Comedy Gold.

Another humorous video about marriage is after the jump.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I appreciated the attempt, but yeah, not far enough from reality to work as satire.

Kathy Padilla | June 4, 2009 12:57 PM

I do love me some Onion - have to give a look when I get home as video isn't accessable from MPOW.

Painfully funny--in more ways than one.

"Yeah, let's not pretend like the Religious Right makes a clean distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity."

"Real Marriage = Real Penis + Real Vagina"

How could the Religious Right, much less the average person in the neighborhood, make such a distinction when the GLBT has done everything possible to relate transsexuality to homosexuality?

Many of us have seen this coming for years and years.

How much time do the GLBT activist devote to making the distinct and crystal clear point in their advocacy that transsexuals are not only not necessarily homosexual, but many can't stand nor suspport the entire transgender mindset, and in some cases, perhaps don't support the GLB either? Try none!

The GLBT's mantra is: "What's good for the GLB is good for the transgender, including transsexuals." It's to the GLB's advantage to do so, even if it is at the expense of the marriage rights many transsexuals have in most states.

It seems that the entire concept of transsexuality has now been so blurred by the GLB that it's easy to forget that in simple terms it means a female born in a male body, or vice versa...and, in the case of a MtoF transsexual, after GRS we are female. Being female doesn't automatically equate to being a lesbian female, or homosexually oriented at all.

Will the GLB activists make that distinction in their advocacy? Not on your life!

Will the transgender activists make that distinction? Nope, they won't either!

What incentive does the GLBT have to not only preserve but to not place into jeopardy the rights of those under it's umbrella (an umbrella many of us are placed under whether we like it or not) if it means a sum total gain for the GLB in some way...any way? They have no incentive whatsoever!

I was born in Louisiana and, as a post operative female, have had the right to enter into a heterosexual marriage in that state since 1968 - 41 YEARS AGO - the legislation santioning that marriage right was specifically written to address birth certificate changes for that exact reason, i.e., to legalize heterosexual marriages between a post operative female/male and a natal male/female. On the other hand, there is a constitutional ban in Lousisiana on same-sex marriage.

Do I think the GLB would sabotage that right I've had in Louisiana for the past 41 years at the drop of a hat if it meant any gain whatsoever for them? They'd do it in a New York second!

Paige Listerud | June 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Forgive me for not being able to site the story, but a few weeks ago, I did see news of a transwoman's marriage to a man being totally dissolved by a court in the South because she was ruled by the judge to still be a man. Therefore, under that state's one man + one woman definition of marriage, their marriage could no longer be considered legitimate.

I will try to search for this story again, because it made my eyes pop.

I think the case you're referring to is the one about the transwoman in prison in Tennessee.

Marja Erwin | June 4, 2009 7:01 PM

Also two in Texas:

Littleton v. Prange

Mireles v. Mireles

...and Florida.

Her husband of 2 years died and the family challenged the will and marriage in probate court.
The probate court dissolved the marriage and the woman was charged and convicted of fraud very quickly.
She was sentenced to two years in state prison.

She ended up with a deal where she siged a quit claim to everything and stopped all leagle procedings. (that was around 2006 or so in south eastern Florida)

*sigh* I am from Alabama and IS/TG and that story is probably true by now. They kinda lack the ability to spot 'sarcasm' they confuse it with ‘orgasm’ and you can go to jail for that down thar.

A. J. Lopp | June 4, 2009 10:14 PM

I will not attempt to further confuse this discussion by pointing out gender-ambiguities that can occur naturally: XYY, androgen insensitivity, etc. Patricia Nell Warren has posted on the details previously (regarding both marriage and categorizing an athlete as male or female), and she has done so better than I ever could.

These marriage ambiguities are not new, they have always existed, and probably always will. And they are not the invention nor are they the fault of the socially subversive homosexual agenda.

yeah right, like a gay person is going to spend thousands of dollars for an operation so as to legitimize their relationship as hetero.

It seems that some of the commenters don't get satire. Hmmm.
The Onion is a sairical news publication folks, not a "real" news site. Though, admttedly, sometimes their satire is uncomfortably close to the truth, as in this case, and the religious right can be soooo bizarre as to make it rather hard to satirize them effectively.

divadarya | June 5, 2009 2:43 PM

Both are pee-my-pants funny. Thanks for sharing them!!