by Andrew Walden
Is Governor Abercrombie rushing a gay marriage special legislative session on behalf of the “Pregnant Man”?
Abercrombie’s draft gay marriage bill released August 28, 2013 would make Hawaii the only state in the nation to claim legal jurisdiction over divorces in which neither party is a resident of the state (p15 line 1-4). The law’s application would be limited to marriages conducted in Hawaii where “neither party to the marriage is able to pursue an action for divorce … because the parties are domiciled in a jurisdiction that does not recognize their marriage.”
When they divorce, participants in any Hawaii gay ‘marriage’ who are resident in any of the dozens of states that haven’t been fooled into inventing gay ‘marriage’ could be able to reach back into a Hawaii court to establish—among other things—child custody.
In gay ‘marriage’, at least one partner is not the biological parent of any child falling under their control. But Abercrombie’s draft bill (p4 line 13-17) states:
Parentage rights based on marriage shall be the same for all married spouses regardless of the gender of the spouses. These rights shall include, but are not limited to, paternity, maternity, and parentage presumptions based on marriage.
Abercrombie’s language means that a biological parent (or parents) not party to a gay ‘marriage’ are presumed to have inferior rights to their own children because the children are deemed to be of marital parentage. If you are confused by this, just try to read “HRS 584-4 Presumptions of paternity” re-written in the gender-neutral language mandated by Abercrombie’s draft bill. (p4 line 5-12)
There is a reason that every state in the union requires divorce petitioners to be legal state residents. What protections will exist for the non-partner biological parent of the children in question? By refusing to address this possibility, Abercrombie’s bill tilts Hawaii’s legal playing field even further against the rights of non-partner biological parents.
Mennonite pacifists—pioneers of the Underground Railroad--have already conducted at least one woman and her biological child to Nicaragua--away from a Vermont lesbian who demanded and received court-ordered child custody after a gay divorce. There will be more.
Divorce naturally contains the possibility of bi-jurisdictional conflict if the two partners are in different states. Abercrombie also opens the door to go from bi-jurisdictional to tri-jurisdictional due to the dual-jurisdiction potential of any out-of-state filer--plus additional possible jurisdictions for children and for their biological parents.
Then it gets complicated:
“Pregnant man” Thomas Beatie is formerly known as Miss. Tracy Lagondino, a gay activist from Hawaii who participated in the 1990s push for gay marriage in Hawaii. Miss. Lagondino, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, took hormones, underwent some “upper body” surgical treatments, and declared herself to be male. Under Hawaii law created for this purpose, she was able to have her gender declared to be male on her drivers license and other legal documents. She also legally changed her name to “Thomas Beatie.” The legalized gender falsehood allowed her to then “legally” marry Miss. Nancy Gillespie, an actual female, in Hawaii February 5, 2003, subverting the Hawaii Legislature’s finding that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Miss. Beatie in 2005 moved with her “wife” to Oregon and claims to have registered all of her Oregon documents as if she were male. She also gave birth to several children.
In 2010 she and her “wife” moved to Maricopa Co, Arizona, a more advanced jurisdiction in which knowledge of biology is not clouded by mists of superstition, and soon filed for divorce, setting off a media frenzy.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Douglas Gerlach in early 2013 determined that human males cannot give birth. Since Arizona does not have gay ‘marriage’, Gerlach thus found that he did not have jurisdiction grant a gay divorce.
Miss. Tracy Langondino campaigning for gay ‘marriage’ in Hawaii, 2001.
The gay divorce question is being used to push recognition of gay ‘marriage’ in other states as well. Rulings in Ohio are mixed. The Texas Supreme Court is being asked to rule on a gay divorce. Minnesota’s first gay divorce was filed one week after the legalization of gay ‘marriage’.
AP April 2, 2013 gives Abercrombie his cue:
Thomas Beatie … wanted (an Arizona) court to recognize his (sic) marriage (sic).
He (sic) said moving back to Hawaii to start divorce proceedings there was impractical.…
Michael Cantor, one of Thomas Beatie's attorneys, said Beatie could remarry (sic) in Arizona, but he (sic) could create conflicts in Hawaii, where Beatie's first marriage was viewed as valid and where he (sic) could later be accused of polygamy.
Obviously the key question for Abercrombie is how he can help Miss Beatie manipulate Arizona courts to impose gay marriage on Arizonans. And he is clearly willing to turn the Hawaii Legislature into a pretzel in order to achieve this goal.
Even a person suffering with ‘gender dysphonia’ cannot be resident in two states at one time. Whether Miss Beatie obtains a divorce by re-establishing legal residency in Hawaii or under Abercrombie’s bill without re-establishing residency, that would likely end her Arizona appeals thus ruining her chance at getting an Arizona court to impose gay marriage on Arizona by legal fiat. It really boils down to a strategic political decision.
Once divorced, Miss Beatie could attempt to “marry” her new girlfriend, Miss Amber Nicholas, under the pretense that Miss. Beattie is male. If successful, a subsequent divorce attempt could be denied by invalidating the “marriage” as deceitful. But with the appropriate level of judge-shopping, they might get it through.
LINK: Full Text: Abercrombie Releases Draft of Gay ‘Marriage’ Bill
HRS 584-4 Presumption of paternity (Try to read this in a gender-neutral language.)