I found the link to the NY Post article, and I am not found of the NY Post.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06152009/news/regionalnews/marriage_license_of_2_nyc_men_revoked_174388.htm

With the headline:
MARRIAGE LICENSE OF 2 NYC MEN REVOKED

Now it seems to me, that on a technicality that Nelson true was born a male,and presently under going a sex reversal to become a female this really is not a same sex marriage.

I am not really sure if they fall under the term of being “homosexuals”.

As a gay male, I have personally tried to understand trans people. I defend their use of whichever personal pronoun defines them best. A person with male anatomy who identifies as a female is, unfortunately, still a person with male anatomy. When it comes to marriage and a legal definition of “sex”, it is your sex organs that define who you are. “Gender” is a different one. A person with female anatomy can easily identify as a male. This would be a case where they are female sex and male gender.

A “same-sex marriage” is one between individuals of the same sex. This means that the reference to a “same-sex couple” is accurate.

This is also why there is a fight for same-sex marriage. There are no laws that forbid same-gender marriage. Any person with male anatomy can marry any person with female anatomy. It doesn’t matter that the male identifies as female and always dresses as a female. However, if the male gets a sex-change operation, the marriage becomes a same-sex marriage and MAY no longer be recognized by the state/province/nation.

I do agree that the original reference to a “gay” couple was incorrect.

I am over the 15 mins. of famers out there. Also, I agree, after you have the sex change then you are no longer Gay or Lesbian, they are now man and woman, who cares what he/she was when born, its what you are at time of “marriage.”

This highlights the problems with demanding that trans people get surgery before legally changing documented sex (or even that sex is a required part of identification). A man and a woman marry, and the technicality that the woman hasn’t had surgery and changed her birth certificate morphs this into a same-sex marriage.

Ideally, there wouldn’t be any requirement to define sex on identification, and anyone could marry whomever they wish.

Also: “Biologically male” is also offensive. Are trans people not biological?

I’m angry regarding how this story is being covered. This is not a same-sex marriage story; this is a transgender person not being able to marry the one she loves story. This is a story about why marriage equality is more than a gay and lesbian story; part of why marriage equality is a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community civil rights issue.
If the couple in question technically was a same-sex couple, then for sure this couple are definitely not a same-gender couple. This was a marriage between a man and a woman where the state doesn’t recognize the woman as a woman.
So, the LGBT publication The Advocate now refers to pre-operative transsexual women as men. I’m a pre-operative transsexual woman myself, who was referred to as transgender in The Advocate just last week: was it a fluke that The Advocate didn’t refer to me as “Mr. Autumn Sandeen?”
Obviously, I’m seething over this. Let me clearly state in less than judicious terms what my opinion on the LGBT publication The Advocate not following the Associated Press’s, GLAAD’s and/or the NLGJA’s guidelines of referring to transgender people by their target gender:
Don’t gay up a transgender person’s wedding. If the LGBT press wants to use this marriage to make the point that marriage equality is more than just about gays and lesbians, then fine. Want to identify a transgender woman as a man to make it a same-sex marriage story? That is just not acceptable in the slightest.”

This story is WRONG on so very many levels. You should not discuss transgender rights unless you understand transgender issues!