Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Tenn. nixes marriage of transgender woman, man
05.14.2009 7:52am EDT
(Clarksville, Tenn.) Tennessee authorities have invalidated the 18-month marriage of a transgender woman and a man, saying the state considers them both men.
Jo T. Rittenberry, 46, was born a man and claims to have had sex reassignment surgery in Canada. The Clarksville Leaf Chronicle reported that she had officials legally change the gender on her Kentucky birth certificate and Tennessee driver’s license.Rittenberry married Jeffery Scott Phillips, 36, in November 2007.
Kelly Farmer, director of communications at the Davidson County Clerk’s Office, said Tennessee authorities will not honor the marriage because Rittenberry was not born a woman.
Tennessee does not permit same-sex marriage and does not recognize gender change even after sex reassignment surgery.
“The marriage is real to me,” said Rittenberry, also known as Terri Jo Colby. “It wasn’t anything planned to be deceptive. I’m not gay, and Jeff ain’t either.”
The Canadian clinic where Rittenberry claims to have had gender reassignment surgery says she was a patient there but no operation was performed. Rittenberry disputes that.
Authorities began raising questions of gender after Rittenberry was booked into jail in March, charged with domestic assault against a relative and criminal impersonation stemming from allegations of credit card fraud.
Montgomery Sheriff’s Department spokesman Ted Denny told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Rittenberry is being housed with men and was patted down by both male and female officers because Rittenberry has breasts and male genitalia.
How did they find out that she was a transexual if her documents say other wise? Some big mouth much have said something.. I think this is wrong.. I too agree with her statement.. She is not a man, and he isn’t gay. I don’t understand how it is a gay marriage.. This is obnoxious.. She is beautiful.. Everything about her is female.. Gay men don’t check her out on the streets.. Wow. People are so dictating. It’s sad.. I don’t see why one body part (if she still has it) makes her a man. That’s sexist in my opinion.. She’s on female hormones, has boobs like me and any other women, walks, talk, acts, smells like a female.. What’s wrong here??
Jen Marcus: Tennessee’s laws are a bit backwards, but most of the US is ahead of the rest of the world, at least on trans issues.
Several European countries whose laws are influenced by the Code Napolean have incredibly strict laws about gender reassignment. Some even do not allow a change of legal sex at all if the person has had children.
And if the state of Tennessee were to consider an elephant to be an alligator, would that make it an alligator?
Give me a break! The fact is that the person has changed gender and is a woman. Clearly Tennessee authorities need to learn a great deal about what people go through when they choose to change gender.
This is complicated. Ideally she should not be required to surgically alter her body in order to marry the man she loves (marriage equality would make such issues moot). Admittedly though it is difficult for a state to legally recognise a transgendered person who has not had genital surgery in order to reflect the sex with which they identify, although it sounds like Tennessee is bigoted and reactionary in any case. Her being a criminal does not help matters either.
Its unfortunate that things like this happen in the US. This is just another example of negative historic religious affectation and meddling in secular politics and laws. Point of fact, many southern states like Tennessee, also, some midwestern, and southwestern states are not very progressive. They are too biblically centered and do not take in account modern science, medicine and genetics so as result injustices and inequities like this exist in these jurisdictions. Another sad reality is that many “T” people cannot afford or are not good candidates from a health standpoint for GRS so they cannot meet many states’ requirements for legal document changes for amended correct gender recognition. In any case, so much for the First Amendment, US Constitutional Doctrine of Separation of Church and State and The Full Faith and Credit Clause which may have an impact in the final result of this case assuming a lawsuit is filed and an appellate court agrees to review it?
First, can we not condemn a whole state full of people as backwoods idiots because you don’t like what some are doing?
There are some details not fleshed out in this version of the story.
I can’t remember how Mrs. Rittenberry’s (Philip’s, it’s not clear which she prefers) gender originally came into question. But apparently the staff decided that following policies required determining the state of Mrs. Rittenberry’s genitalia. However, there is a policy preventing strip searches except for cases of suspected (drug) smuggling. The female officer apparently patted down Mrs. Rittenberry breasts, and the male officer her crotch. The male officer decided he felt male genitalia.
Mrs. Rittenberry asserts that she has had bottom surgery. The local authorities dispute this because of the pat down, the clinic denies having records of the surgery (though they do confirm the surgery was scheduled) and because on Mrs. Rittenberry’s Facebook (mySpace?) page she shows her status as pre-op. Mrs. Rittenberry says she simply hadn’t updated that webpage, that the officer performing the clothed pat down made an error in his determination, and that she wouldn’t have scheduled a surgery without following through with it. She is because accused of presenting a falsified document to obtain the change to her Kentucky birth certificate.
She is now being housed in some kind of “protected” environment because of the danger she faces in the men’s unit. This by the way is common in all states if someone is judged to be pre-op. Prison systems not handle transgender people well.
The couple was originally allowed to marry without question because Mrs. Rittenberry had a state-issued picture ID showing her female. As TN doesn’t recognize transitioning genders/sexes, authorities have determined that marriage now falls under the ban on same-sex marriages and is thus void.
I suspect that because her birth certificate is from Kentucky (where sexes can be changed) that the full faith clause requires TN to recognize her sex change (assuming it is not voided for lack of genital surgery) and thus her marriage. But as happens in other states, if she decided to marry a woman the state would have to recognize the marriage. Transgender people’s ability to marry varies with state laws, their surgical status and their particular sexual orientation.
While I am not a legal scholar, I imagine this could actually turn out to be a very important legal case in TN if it is pursued. If Mrs. Rittenberry can obtain a full faith judgment, it would appear to have obvious implications for any out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Articles from the local paper appear can be found here:
http://search.theleafchronicle.com/sp?aff=1100&skin=100&keywords=rittenberry
Most states (and countries) require sex-reassignment surgery before they will recognize a legal change of sex. Tennessee is peculiar because it is one like three states where historically they would not issue an amended birth certificate, even after SRS.
Like it or not, though, her case is hampered by the fact that she hasn’t had SRS. There’s very little legal precedent in the world (let alone the US) for legal recognition of a change of sex prior to SRS.
What tends to vary is the definition of ‘SRS’; most states and countries require total removal of the person’s genitalia and either construction of what is possible of the alternative, or at the very least the altering of the genitalia such that sterility is inevitable.
If she’s going to argue that she should be legally recognized as female prior to SRS, she doesn’t have any legal legs to stand on.
What she can do (and probably should do) is sue the state for housing her with men in the prison on the basis that it invites prison rape (and consequently violates both the due process clause and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution).
Island Boy, Would your island be Jamaica?
I hope your joking. Anything related to the bible, is hearsay, non factual.
Whether your joking or not, it’s way past time, that people who are enlightened, stop indulging these fanatics, allowing them the power to oppress and discriminate against anyone because of their (non factual) religious belief system.
It’s time to stop the oppression, suffering and murder, inflicted upon innocent people caused by the dictators of religious beliefs.
They used to believe the sun revolved around the earth, they believed in witches, they believe that heaven, is solely for them, they took Native American Indians Children from their parents, and beat Christianity into them, the same with the Eskimos, lets not forget the hundreds of thousands that died in the holy wars!
All the above mentioned and more, have caused physical pain and mental suffering, not to mentioned the innocent people murdered in the name of God and religion.
The only things historically correct concerning the bible, is religion needs to have, and keep absolute power, to keep power, they must dictate and use religious beliefs, for the sole purpose to oppress,torture and murder anyone who doesn’t conform or repent to their interpretations of their of God and religion!
Now I wonder what would happen if she tried to marry a woman, with her license and birth certificate reading “female.” If she were turned down (and I bet you she would) she would have a strong case for a lawsuit on her hands (trans people aren’t allowed to marry anyone then?).
I never realized what a backwards-ass state Tennessee was.
They’re being “biblically” correct.
oooh, this is sooo wrong on so many levels, I just can’t seem to begin. a whole state full of backwoods idiots. housed in wrong jail,
patted down by both male and female officers because Rittenberry has breasts and male genitalia. where did they know where to stop. i mean what sex patted down the bellybutton, the ankles?