Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
LBGT must be DEPORTED to ISIS-land for Execution!
LBGT must be DEPORTED to ISIS-land for Execution!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marriages
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
That "Singapore Legal Advice" website you cut and paste from represents the opinions and reading of the WC from a bunch of lawyers. You will be able to find an equal number of lawyers who read the WC differently. Bottom line is this. If a marriage is invalid from the start, there is zero need to get it annulled. How do you annul a contract that is invalid in the first place???
The ROM's website states all this clearly for laymen, including the the "solemnity of marriage, which is the union between one man and one woman" as well as the solemnizer's final declaration of a couple being "man and wife". The "Registrar and/or the licensed solemnizer can decline to solemnize a marriage if he or she is of the view that the attire chosen by the parties is not in accordance with the solemnity of the occasion, and the spirit of the marriage as the union between one man and one woman."
If it turns out you are not a "man" but "woman and wife", that marriage, which is effectively a contract, is then like any contract that is secured under falsehood, void. If the affected persons are unable to understand what they read, and insist that their marriage contract is not void and should stand, the onus is on them to take legal action against ROM and not the other way around. There is no need for ROM to go to court, etc since the marriage was invalid from the beginning.
Without being privy to the details, I would imagine that this issue has come about due to these two faggots' false declaration/s to ROM/the solemnizer. ROM and/or the solemnizer could have refused marrying these two in the first place if they had been told the complete truth about these two faggots' intent.
That "Singapore Legal Advice" website you cut and paste from represents the opinions and reading of the WC from a bunch of lawyers. You will be able to find an equal number of lawyers who read the WC differently. Bottom line is this. If a marriage is invalid from the start, there is zero need to get it annulled. How do you annul a contract that is invalid in the first place???
The ROM's website states all this clearly for laymen, including the the "solemnity of marriage, which is the union between one man and one woman" as well as the solemnizer's final declaration of a couple being "man and wife". The "Registrar and/or the licensed solemnizer can decline to solemnize a marriage if he or she is of the view that the attire chosen by the parties is not in accordance with the solemnity of the occasion, and the spirit of the marriage as the union between one man and one woman."
If it turns out you are not a "man" but "woman and wife", that marriage, which is effectively a contract, is then like any contract that is secured under falsehood, void. If the affected persons are unable to understand what they read, and insist that their marriage contract is not void and should stand, the onus is on them to take legal action against ROM and not the other way around. There is no need for ROM to go to court, etc since the marriage was invalid from the beginning.
Without being privy to the details, I would imagine that this issue has come about due to these two faggots' false declaration/s to ROM/the solemnizer. ROM and/or the solemnizer could have refused marrying these two in the first place if they had been told the complete truth about these two faggots' intent.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Don't be silly. It's impossible for society to be "fair" to each and everyone who undoubtedly will have insatiable demands and expectations of what exactly constitutes "fairness" and "discrimination". Everyone suddenly become "immoral bigots" if the demands of these self-entitled are not acceded to??? That is as emotive as can be. Hardly "reasoned" nor "logical".
The Chinese gripe about discriminatory privileges and benefits in favour of Malays, etc. Malays gripe about discriminatory language requirements in job placements, etc. Indians gripe about discriminatory "Chinese privilege", SAPS schools and just about everything else. I gripe about being discriminated against as I am not allowed to marry my adult daughter. My wife is furious as she is not allowed to marry my second daughter after she (wife) underwent a "gender transition". My whinging sons complained incessantly about being discriminated against by the state for not receiving the benefits that "pioneers" receive. Get the picture?
So what's the solution? Cater to everyone's insatiable needs and wants just to avoid being labelled a "discriminatory" and "immoral bigot"???
Don't be silly. It's impossible for society to be "fair" to each and everyone who undoubtedly will have insatiable demands and expectations of what exactly constitutes "fairness" and "discrimination". Everyone suddenly become "immoral bigots" if the demands of these self-entitled are not acceded to??? That is as emotive as can be. Hardly "reasoned" nor "logical".
The Chinese gripe about discriminatory privileges and benefits in favour of Malays, etc. Malays gripe about discriminatory language requirements in job placements, etc. Indians gripe about discriminatory "Chinese privilege", SAPS schools and just about everything else. I gripe about being discriminated against as I am not allowed to marry my adult daughter. My wife is furious as she is not allowed to marry my second daughter after she (wife) underwent a "gender transition". My whinging sons complained incessantly about being discriminated against by the state for not receiving the benefits that "pioneers" receive. Get the picture?
So what's the solution? Cater to everyone's insatiable needs and wants just to avoid being labelled a "discriminatory" and "immoral bigot"???
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Your quote, not mine.
The operative clause is "can decline to solemnize a marriage ..."
This is exactly what I was saying. A void marriage is a marriage that has no currency in our jurisdiction and that has not been registered with ROM or solemnized.
A marriage that has been registered and solemnized by ROM can only be annulled by the courts. ROM cannot register a marriage first, and later upon discovering its mistake, decide to void it without referring it to the courts.
The couple in question had already registered and solemnized their marriage with ROM in October 2015. Any dispute arising later regarding the voidability of the marriage can only be settled by the courts.
Your quote, not mine.
The operative clause is "can decline to solemnize a marriage ..."
This is exactly what I was saying. A void marriage is a marriage that has no currency in our jurisdiction and that has not been registered with ROM or solemnized.
A marriage that has been registered and solemnized by ROM can only be annulled by the courts. ROM cannot register a marriage first, and later upon discovering its mistake, decide to void it without referring it to the courts.
The couple in question had already registered and solemnized their marriage with ROM in October 2015. Any dispute arising later regarding the voidability of the marriage can only be settled by the courts.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
You're evading the question: on what basis is the HDB discriminating between a single unmarried mum and a single divorced mum?
You brought up taxpayers' money. So I said: show me that it costs more to provide housing to the former than the latter.
You brought up morality (not me). So I said: show me how the former is more immoral than the latter to the degree that she's not entitled to the housing that the latter is.
BTW, I didn't use the phrase 'immoral bigots'. I used words like 'immorality' and 'immoral' because such judgmental terms are typical of the phraseology that bigots themselves like to use. Nothing at all about bigots being immoral.
You're evading the question: on what basis is the HDB discriminating between a single unmarried mum and a single divorced mum?
You brought up taxpayers' money. So I said: show me that it costs more to provide housing to the former than the latter.
You brought up morality (not me). So I said: show me how the former is more immoral than the latter to the degree that she's not entitled to the housing that the latter is.
BTW, I didn't use the phrase 'immoral bigots'. I used words like 'immorality' and 'immoral' because such judgmental terms are typical of the phraseology that bigots themselves like to use. Nothing at all about bigots being immoral.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
They might be giving problems, but the ROM has no right taking the law into its own hands. ROM should apply to the courts to annul the marriage.
And if HDB suspects foul play in the couple's application for a flat, it should haul them to court.
They might be giving problems, but the ROM has no right taking the law into its own hands. ROM should apply to the courts to annul the marriage.
And if HDB suspects foul play in the couple's application for a flat, it should haul them to court.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Looks like this is more complicated. This is from Ms Han.
https://qz.com/988514/a-straight-ma...-and-singapores-famous-efficiency-broke-down/
A straight married couple became a same-sex one and Singapore’s famous efficiency broke down
Singapore_20170428_0077
WRITTEN BY
Kirsten Han
June 14, 2017
It was meant to follow the tried-and-tested Singaporean script of life: A young Singaporean couple applies for their first state-subsidized apartment together, they work and save money in the intervening years, and they get married shortly before picking up the house keys. But there was a twist in the story: The husband in the couple was transgender, and transitioned to female during this process. And Singapore’s famous efficiency quickly broke down.
While Singapore does recognize transgender people, it does not recognize same-sex marriage. However, the law governing marriages, called the Women’s Charter, states only that marriages that did not take place between a man and a woman “at the date of the marriage” are void.
FK and BS (initials have been used instead of full names to protect the couple’s privacy) applied to get married in 2015, after they’d been together for eight years. At that point, FK’s identity card still listed her sex as “male.” A lawyer they consulted suggested they were within their rights to marry.
About a month before they were due to solemnize their marriage, officers at the government’s Registry of Marriages expressed concern over FK’s name. Although she had not undergone gender-affirming surgery nor changed the gender on her ID card, she had formally changed her name.
FK explained her situation to the agency. After some discussion, the officers asked her to sign a document declaring that she would not undergo surgery before the date of her marriage, and requested that she dress in a more masculine fashion on the big day. FK complied, and the couple were married in October 2015.
“I was actually happy that they [made me sign the declaration] because that meant they knew what was going on… They clearly thought it through when they decided to make me sign the declaration form stating I wouldn’t go for surgery before the marriage,” said FK. “And I interpreted that as a sort of, ‘OK, whatever happens after the marriage is none of our business.’ Otherwise, why would they make me sign it?”
FK went for surgery in June the following year, and updated her details in accordance with Singapore’s laws allowing transgender people to change the sex stated on their identity cards. (Singapore marriage laws also allow a transgender person to marry someone of the opposite gender from the one they have transitioned to.)
That was the start of the couple’s long dance with the city-state’s bureaucracy, as different agencies then found themselves parsing whether or not the couple continued to be legally married—and whether they were entitled to a house under laws geared to favor married couples who might start families.
What is a marriage in Singapore?
The couple’s troubles began in earnest when they informed Singapore’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) of the change in August 2016. According to the HDB’s eligibility criteria, the state-subsidized four-room apartment they were expecting to receive after a four-year wait is reserved only for married Singaporeans. Once the agency realized both partners were officially female, a housing board officer told them they couldn’t collect the keys to their flat as they weren’t entitled to get married.
“I told her, ‘But we’re already married.’ She was shocked. You could tell that they had no idea what to do,” FK recalled. “First she said, ‘The marriage needs to be valid in Singapore,’ because I think she thought we got married overseas. I answered, ‘No, it’s a marriage by Singapore’s Registry of Marriages.’ And then she said she needed to get back to us. That’s when all the delays started.”
They were told to wait for two weeks. Then another two weeks went by. The matter stretched into October of last year. When the couple called the Registry of Marriages in late October, they were told to expect an answer by Nov. 30, 2016. But when that day rolled around, they were told by the housing board that the matter had not been resolved, and that even a time frame could no longer be provided. Singapore’s much-touted efficiency had ground to a halt; they were simply asked to wait. And wait. And wait some more.
“As each case is unique and has to be dealt with individually, the time required to consider each application may vary,” wrote the HDB in response to Quartz’s inquiries.
Bureaucratic confusion
When FK paid a visit to the marriage registry in an attempt to seek clarity, she was told by the agency, “We were focusing on whether you guys met the requirements, and clearly, you both did… That’s our message to HDB as well: As far as we’re concerned, when both of you registered the marriage, you had met all our requirements. Therefore, from there onwards our message to HDB has been, then, it’s really their call and their policy.”
The lack of a clear precedent in Singaporean case law meant that there was no rule book to follow. “They kept saying they need some time to think about it, they need more time,” BS said, referring to the housing board.
“When I asked them, ‘Who’s in charge?’ they were unable to answer. When I asked them for a deadline, they were unable to answer,” FK added. “There seems to have been a bit of an internal struggle between the various government agencies. Nobody wanted to be responsible.”
The matter continued to drag on, leaving the couple without a home of their own. To make matters worse, FK later discovered that the authorities had acquired the medical certificate detailing her procedures, and taken steps to contact the clinic that carried out the surgery without her consent.
“I just feel like my privacy was completely violated. The matter was not handled sensitively at all,” she said.
“Correcting” the register
Finally, on Feb. 10 of this year, they were informed by the marriage registrar that because they “did not intend from the start to live as one man and one woman,” the marriage was void. Their entry in the State Marriage Register was thus “corrected accordingly,” meaning that it was completely removed, as if they had never been married at all. When contacted by Quartz, the Ministry of Social and Family Development, which has oversight of the registry, offered an expanded definition of marriage from the wording in the Women’s Charter.
“Singapore law does not recognize a marriage where both parties are of the same sex. At the point of marriage, a couple must be man and woman, and must want to be and want to remain as man and woman in the marriage,” said a ministry representative. When asked why FK was asked to sign a declaration about not undergoing surgery prior to marriage, as well as the pursuit of her personal medical details, the Registry of Marriages (ROM) said it was unable to comment due to confidentiality reasons.
Questions remain over this interpretation of the law. “In my research into family law and validity of marriages, I did not encounter any statutory or regulatory requirement that the couple ‘must want to be and want to remain as man and woman in the marriage,’” said Indulekshmi Rajeswari, project leader of a legal guidebook for LGBT couples and families in Singapore. “I would ask that the [ministry] clarify exactly what statute or case law states this, because otherwise it does not form part of the law.”
“Along the same veins, I am unable to find the statutory authorization for ROM to be able to unilaterally declare a marriage null and void on this ground, and I would again ask ROM to cite the exact regulation that enables them to do so,” she added.
The couple were eventually still given a housing board flat, half the size of the one they had originally wanted. They were allowed to purchase it only under the Singles Scheme, which costs S$15,000 ($10,859) more than it would have been for a married couple.
The entire ordeal has taken a toll on the couple.
“It’s a bit of a weird position, because on the one hand I’ve never been happier with myself. But then on the other hand, what am I dealing with now?” said FK. “I’ve always been a very big workaholic… now I’m the complete opposite. I can’t see myself working anymore, I’m just so demoralized… Every morning I wake up and I ask myself, why should I contribute to this society anymore? You know, if this is how they’re going to treat me, why should I bother?”
MOST POPULAR
Looks like this is more complicated. This is from Ms Han.
https://qz.com/988514/a-straight-ma...-and-singapores-famous-efficiency-broke-down/
A straight married couple became a same-sex one and Singapore’s famous efficiency broke down
Singapore_20170428_0077
WRITTEN BY
Kirsten Han
June 14, 2017
It was meant to follow the tried-and-tested Singaporean script of life: A young Singaporean couple applies for their first state-subsidized apartment together, they work and save money in the intervening years, and they get married shortly before picking up the house keys. But there was a twist in the story: The husband in the couple was transgender, and transitioned to female during this process. And Singapore’s famous efficiency quickly broke down.
While Singapore does recognize transgender people, it does not recognize same-sex marriage. However, the law governing marriages, called the Women’s Charter, states only that marriages that did not take place between a man and a woman “at the date of the marriage” are void.
FK and BS (initials have been used instead of full names to protect the couple’s privacy) applied to get married in 2015, after they’d been together for eight years. At that point, FK’s identity card still listed her sex as “male.” A lawyer they consulted suggested they were within their rights to marry.
About a month before they were due to solemnize their marriage, officers at the government’s Registry of Marriages expressed concern over FK’s name. Although she had not undergone gender-affirming surgery nor changed the gender on her ID card, she had formally changed her name.
FK explained her situation to the agency. After some discussion, the officers asked her to sign a document declaring that she would not undergo surgery before the date of her marriage, and requested that she dress in a more masculine fashion on the big day. FK complied, and the couple were married in October 2015.
“I was actually happy that they [made me sign the declaration] because that meant they knew what was going on… They clearly thought it through when they decided to make me sign the declaration form stating I wouldn’t go for surgery before the marriage,” said FK. “And I interpreted that as a sort of, ‘OK, whatever happens after the marriage is none of our business.’ Otherwise, why would they make me sign it?”
FK went for surgery in June the following year, and updated her details in accordance with Singapore’s laws allowing transgender people to change the sex stated on their identity cards. (Singapore marriage laws also allow a transgender person to marry someone of the opposite gender from the one they have transitioned to.)
That was the start of the couple’s long dance with the city-state’s bureaucracy, as different agencies then found themselves parsing whether or not the couple continued to be legally married—and whether they were entitled to a house under laws geared to favor married couples who might start families.
What is a marriage in Singapore?
The couple’s troubles began in earnest when they informed Singapore’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) of the change in August 2016. According to the HDB’s eligibility criteria, the state-subsidized four-room apartment they were expecting to receive after a four-year wait is reserved only for married Singaporeans. Once the agency realized both partners were officially female, a housing board officer told them they couldn’t collect the keys to their flat as they weren’t entitled to get married.
“I told her, ‘But we’re already married.’ She was shocked. You could tell that they had no idea what to do,” FK recalled. “First she said, ‘The marriage needs to be valid in Singapore,’ because I think she thought we got married overseas. I answered, ‘No, it’s a marriage by Singapore’s Registry of Marriages.’ And then she said she needed to get back to us. That’s when all the delays started.”
They were told to wait for two weeks. Then another two weeks went by. The matter stretched into October of last year. When the couple called the Registry of Marriages in late October, they were told to expect an answer by Nov. 30, 2016. But when that day rolled around, they were told by the housing board that the matter had not been resolved, and that even a time frame could no longer be provided. Singapore’s much-touted efficiency had ground to a halt; they were simply asked to wait. And wait. And wait some more.
“As each case is unique and has to be dealt with individually, the time required to consider each application may vary,” wrote the HDB in response to Quartz’s inquiries.
Bureaucratic confusion
When FK paid a visit to the marriage registry in an attempt to seek clarity, she was told by the agency, “We were focusing on whether you guys met the requirements, and clearly, you both did… That’s our message to HDB as well: As far as we’re concerned, when both of you registered the marriage, you had met all our requirements. Therefore, from there onwards our message to HDB has been, then, it’s really their call and their policy.”
The lack of a clear precedent in Singaporean case law meant that there was no rule book to follow. “They kept saying they need some time to think about it, they need more time,” BS said, referring to the housing board.
“When I asked them, ‘Who’s in charge?’ they were unable to answer. When I asked them for a deadline, they were unable to answer,” FK added. “There seems to have been a bit of an internal struggle between the various government agencies. Nobody wanted to be responsible.”
The matter continued to drag on, leaving the couple without a home of their own. To make matters worse, FK later discovered that the authorities had acquired the medical certificate detailing her procedures, and taken steps to contact the clinic that carried out the surgery without her consent.
“I just feel like my privacy was completely violated. The matter was not handled sensitively at all,” she said.
“Correcting” the register
Finally, on Feb. 10 of this year, they were informed by the marriage registrar that because they “did not intend from the start to live as one man and one woman,” the marriage was void. Their entry in the State Marriage Register was thus “corrected accordingly,” meaning that it was completely removed, as if they had never been married at all. When contacted by Quartz, the Ministry of Social and Family Development, which has oversight of the registry, offered an expanded definition of marriage from the wording in the Women’s Charter.
“Singapore law does not recognize a marriage where both parties are of the same sex. At the point of marriage, a couple must be man and woman, and must want to be and want to remain as man and woman in the marriage,” said a ministry representative. When asked why FK was asked to sign a declaration about not undergoing surgery prior to marriage, as well as the pursuit of her personal medical details, the Registry of Marriages (ROM) said it was unable to comment due to confidentiality reasons.
Questions remain over this interpretation of the law. “In my research into family law and validity of marriages, I did not encounter any statutory or regulatory requirement that the couple ‘must want to be and want to remain as man and woman in the marriage,’” said Indulekshmi Rajeswari, project leader of a legal guidebook for LGBT couples and families in Singapore. “I would ask that the [ministry] clarify exactly what statute or case law states this, because otherwise it does not form part of the law.”
“Along the same veins, I am unable to find the statutory authorization for ROM to be able to unilaterally declare a marriage null and void on this ground, and I would again ask ROM to cite the exact regulation that enables them to do so,” she added.
The couple were eventually still given a housing board flat, half the size of the one they had originally wanted. They were allowed to purchase it only under the Singles Scheme, which costs S$15,000 ($10,859) more than it would have been for a married couple.
The entire ordeal has taken a toll on the couple.
“It’s a bit of a weird position, because on the one hand I’ve never been happier with myself. But then on the other hand, what am I dealing with now?” said FK. “I’ve always been a very big workaholic… now I’m the complete opposite. I can’t see myself working anymore, I’m just so demoralized… Every morning I wake up and I ask myself, why should I contribute to this society anymore? You know, if this is how they’re going to treat me, why should I bother?”
MOST POPULAR
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Its not an argument to be used in this case. If you follow that line of logic, might as well demand that females must serve NS and the list goes on.
Its not an argument to be used in this case. If you follow that line of logic, might as well demand that females must serve NS and the list goes on.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Note the rift within LGBT.
Can Cis Lesbians and Trans Women Learn to Get Along?
By Evan Urquhart and Parker Marie Molloy
150210_OUT_LesbianTransgender
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Thinkstock, Shutterstock
In theory, our multifaceted, multilettered queer community is all about alliance, solidarity, and mutual support. Though we’ve seen advances in areas like marriage equality and nondiscrimination ordinances, systematic oppression of LGBTQ individuals continues in the form of disparate treatment in health care, employment, criminal justice, and public accommodations such as bathrooms and similar sex-segregated spaces. With so much to fight against outside our coalition, divisions within it have largely gone unchecked, with destructive rifts continuing to grow. One of the widest of these rifts exists between the L’s and T’s, particularly between cisgender lesbians and trans women.
Even among queers, trans women are particularly vulnerable and subject to harassment and violence. According to the Anti-Violence Project’s 2013 report, 72 percent of all anti-LGBTQ homicide victims were transgender women (with more than 90 percent of those being transgender women of color). So, standing in solidarity with those women ought to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, not all lesbians got that memo: In particular, one group of radical lesbian feminists has made a habit of loudly and insistently espousing extreme transphobic ideas of the type that are more usually found among religious conservatives and those ignorant of the struggles for trans acceptance. While we prefer not to bring further publicity to the hateful sites maintained by this community, many of which are dedicated to outing trans individuals and mocking their bodies, a look at the comments on articles about trans women should be more than sufficient to give the reader an idea about of the behavior they engage in. Although they’re referred to by some as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (or TERFs—a label that, although it describes their ideology, is rejected by many within the category), they can go far beyond simply excluding trans women from their events and organizations, and actively harass, mock, and out trans women. That such harassment is supposedly done in the name of protecting cis women from trans women makes this behavior all the more ludicrous.
TERFs are small in number, but they make up for that in visibility (and obnoxiousness). Their existence puts a strain on relations between trans women and cisgender lesbians, but it is not the only area of tension between the two communities.
Even lesbians who aren’t intentionally transphobic can still harbor fears and stereotypes based on their lack of familiarity with trans women (the same goes for trans women, who can be suspicious and fearful of cis lesbians). One persistent stereotype in the cis lesbian community is of trans women presenting a narrow, old-fashioned sort of femininity of the type that many lesbians have dedicated themselves to dismantling politically and socially. Media portrayals that show trans women in this light have added to this perception, despite the fact that trans culture itself has long since opened itself up to a range of female presentations as varied as those among cis women.
Because many trans women are themselves lesbian or bisexual, cis and trans lesbians are forced into regular social contact, making the misunderstandings and mutual ignorance particularly likely to lead to conflicts, hurt feelings, or exclusion. Although some long-established lesbian organizations, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, have been growing steadily more inclusive, the constant need for trans women to explain, educate, and advocate for themselves in the very spaces that are supposed to be safe and friendly can be highly alienating.
For cis lesbians, it can also be difficult to tell the difference between an honest lack of attraction and feelings of fear or disgust at the idea of a partner who they perceive as “really” a man—feelings that are rooted in transphobic cultural conditioning. While trans lesbians seeking romantic connections in the lesbian community are often frustrated by the knee-jerk resistance many cis lesbians have to dating trans women, hearing that one’s individual reluctance to date someone may be based in transphobia can feel unfair and accusatory.
Rumors of trans women who attempt to pressure lesbians to date them by insisting that it would be transphobic to do otherwise don’t help matters—these stories may be apocryphal, but the fear of being pressured into a romantic relationship is hardly conducive to relaxed getting-to-know-yous. Rumors of predatory or pressuring behavior by trans women have been fanned by TERFs in order to paint trans women as violent and coercive.
Trans woman and activist Cristan Williams broke down the history of the ”rape-y trans woman” myth in a 2013 blog post at TransAdvocate. In it, she quotes a number of anti-trans activists, highlighting the way such people spread myths of trans women pressuring lesbians to date or have sex with them in order to frame trans women as men and as rapists.
In reality, navigating the dating world as a lesbian/bi/queer trans woman is far from the power play that anti-trans advocates make it out to be. Last year, trans writer, performer, and biologist Julia Serano wrote a piece for the Daily Beast about the struggle of being trans and in search of romance within queer circles, in which she observed:
While you would think that cis dykes (being more trans aware than the public at large) would take such coming outs in stride, this is not actually the case. Trans female friends of mine have had to suffer through cis dyke “freak out” moments, or even accusations of deception, that rival stereotypical reactions of straight people. … [C]is dykes—many of whom pride themselves on their progressive politics and subversive sexualities—tend to be far more conservative and conforming to our culture’s “yuck-dating-a-trans-woman-is-gross” mindset than their cis male counterparts, at least here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
And then, there are the butches. The word butch, and the identity it describes, dates from a time before modern gender identities and queer theory. As such, it’s a somewhat awkward fit within the modern spectrum, falling right on the line where gender identity meets gender presentation. There are some butches who consider themselves trans and/or nonbinary in identity and others who embrace their identity as female, rejecting the idea that identity must align with presentation. This isn’t to say that clothing, haircuts, and general style are divorced from one’s identity, though; these aren’t simply surface characteristics, at least not for many butches, for whom masculinity is at least as important an aspect of their identity as femaleness is. Nevertheless, trans women are prone to brush off butch as a skin-deep identity, demonstrating a lack of awareness of butch culture or the history of butch-femme dynamics among lesbian couples.
There will always be differences in the experiences of cisgendered women and trans ones, masculine people and feminine ones, and between each and every unique individual. Already, there are signs that the divide between cis lesbians and trans women is growing smaller, as more and more queer women’s groups are extending explicit welcomes to trans women, women’s colleges are opening admissions to trans women, and more trans women are adding their voices to feminist campaigns. True, our differences can lead to misunderstandings and tensions, but the diversity that comes with difference can also be a source of great strength if we are willing to allow ourselves to learn from one another and support each other’s individuality.
Note the rift within LGBT.
Can Cis Lesbians and Trans Women Learn to Get Along?
By Evan Urquhart and Parker Marie Molloy
150210_OUT_LesbianTransgender
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Thinkstock, Shutterstock
In theory, our multifaceted, multilettered queer community is all about alliance, solidarity, and mutual support. Though we’ve seen advances in areas like marriage equality and nondiscrimination ordinances, systematic oppression of LGBTQ individuals continues in the form of disparate treatment in health care, employment, criminal justice, and public accommodations such as bathrooms and similar sex-segregated spaces. With so much to fight against outside our coalition, divisions within it have largely gone unchecked, with destructive rifts continuing to grow. One of the widest of these rifts exists between the L’s and T’s, particularly between cisgender lesbians and trans women.
Even among queers, trans women are particularly vulnerable and subject to harassment and violence. According to the Anti-Violence Project’s 2013 report, 72 percent of all anti-LGBTQ homicide victims were transgender women (with more than 90 percent of those being transgender women of color). So, standing in solidarity with those women ought to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, not all lesbians got that memo: In particular, one group of radical lesbian feminists has made a habit of loudly and insistently espousing extreme transphobic ideas of the type that are more usually found among religious conservatives and those ignorant of the struggles for trans acceptance. While we prefer not to bring further publicity to the hateful sites maintained by this community, many of which are dedicated to outing trans individuals and mocking their bodies, a look at the comments on articles about trans women should be more than sufficient to give the reader an idea about of the behavior they engage in. Although they’re referred to by some as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (or TERFs—a label that, although it describes their ideology, is rejected by many within the category), they can go far beyond simply excluding trans women from their events and organizations, and actively harass, mock, and out trans women. That such harassment is supposedly done in the name of protecting cis women from trans women makes this behavior all the more ludicrous.
TERFs are small in number, but they make up for that in visibility (and obnoxiousness). Their existence puts a strain on relations between trans women and cisgender lesbians, but it is not the only area of tension between the two communities.
Even lesbians who aren’t intentionally transphobic can still harbor fears and stereotypes based on their lack of familiarity with trans women (the same goes for trans women, who can be suspicious and fearful of cis lesbians). One persistent stereotype in the cis lesbian community is of trans women presenting a narrow, old-fashioned sort of femininity of the type that many lesbians have dedicated themselves to dismantling politically and socially. Media portrayals that show trans women in this light have added to this perception, despite the fact that trans culture itself has long since opened itself up to a range of female presentations as varied as those among cis women.
Because many trans women are themselves lesbian or bisexual, cis and trans lesbians are forced into regular social contact, making the misunderstandings and mutual ignorance particularly likely to lead to conflicts, hurt feelings, or exclusion. Although some long-established lesbian organizations, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, have been growing steadily more inclusive, the constant need for trans women to explain, educate, and advocate for themselves in the very spaces that are supposed to be safe and friendly can be highly alienating.
For cis lesbians, it can also be difficult to tell the difference between an honest lack of attraction and feelings of fear or disgust at the idea of a partner who they perceive as “really” a man—feelings that are rooted in transphobic cultural conditioning. While trans lesbians seeking romantic connections in the lesbian community are often frustrated by the knee-jerk resistance many cis lesbians have to dating trans women, hearing that one’s individual reluctance to date someone may be based in transphobia can feel unfair and accusatory.
Rumors of trans women who attempt to pressure lesbians to date them by insisting that it would be transphobic to do otherwise don’t help matters—these stories may be apocryphal, but the fear of being pressured into a romantic relationship is hardly conducive to relaxed getting-to-know-yous. Rumors of predatory or pressuring behavior by trans women have been fanned by TERFs in order to paint trans women as violent and coercive.
Trans woman and activist Cristan Williams broke down the history of the ”rape-y trans woman” myth in a 2013 blog post at TransAdvocate. In it, she quotes a number of anti-trans activists, highlighting the way such people spread myths of trans women pressuring lesbians to date or have sex with them in order to frame trans women as men and as rapists.
In reality, navigating the dating world as a lesbian/bi/queer trans woman is far from the power play that anti-trans advocates make it out to be. Last year, trans writer, performer, and biologist Julia Serano wrote a piece for the Daily Beast about the struggle of being trans and in search of romance within queer circles, in which she observed:
While you would think that cis dykes (being more trans aware than the public at large) would take such coming outs in stride, this is not actually the case. Trans female friends of mine have had to suffer through cis dyke “freak out” moments, or even accusations of deception, that rival stereotypical reactions of straight people. … [C]is dykes—many of whom pride themselves on their progressive politics and subversive sexualities—tend to be far more conservative and conforming to our culture’s “yuck-dating-a-trans-woman-is-gross” mindset than their cis male counterparts, at least here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
And then, there are the butches. The word butch, and the identity it describes, dates from a time before modern gender identities and queer theory. As such, it’s a somewhat awkward fit within the modern spectrum, falling right on the line where gender identity meets gender presentation. There are some butches who consider themselves trans and/or nonbinary in identity and others who embrace their identity as female, rejecting the idea that identity must align with presentation. This isn’t to say that clothing, haircuts, and general style are divorced from one’s identity, though; these aren’t simply surface characteristics, at least not for many butches, for whom masculinity is at least as important an aspect of their identity as femaleness is. Nevertheless, trans women are prone to brush off butch as a skin-deep identity, demonstrating a lack of awareness of butch culture or the history of butch-femme dynamics among lesbian couples.
There will always be differences in the experiences of cisgendered women and trans ones, masculine people and feminine ones, and between each and every unique individual. Already, there are signs that the divide between cis lesbians and trans women is growing smaller, as more and more queer women’s groups are extending explicit welcomes to trans women, women’s colleges are opening admissions to trans women, and more trans women are adding their voices to feminist campaigns. True, our differences can lead to misunderstandings and tensions, but the diversity that comes with difference can also be a source of great strength if we are willing to allow ourselves to learn from one another and support each other’s individuality.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
But ROM is NOT a party to the contract of marriage. If I understand the context of "applying to the Courts for divorce or to have a marriage declared null and void" under the Women's Charter, the applicant has to be a party to the marriage.
The WC does not provide for a situation where a 3rd party submits an application to the Courts for the same purpose and in the same way parties to a marriage do.
But ROM is NOT a party to the contract of marriage. If I understand the context of "applying to the Courts for divorce or to have a marriage declared null and void" under the Women's Charter, the applicant has to be a party to the marriage.
The WC does not provide for a situation where a 3rd party submits an application to the Courts for the same purpose and in the same way parties to a marriage do.
Last edited:
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
You may be right partly
"12.—(1) A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void."
Though I believe that ROM can void a marriage without going to court. At the time of marriage, it was valid as they were indeed man and women. WC is silent however if one party changes sex after marriage. If the law is indeed silent, ROM has no right to void it. They might have overstepped their remit unless had grounds to believe or evidence that the timing or circumstances was contrived to apply for the HDB flat.
As to their rights and entitlement as a citizen, its a different set of arguments. The fact is that laws and cultures are driven by the majority is a factor. I am sure everyone has their views. It noteworthy that OZ Aborigines have quiet a sophisticated structure of prohibited unions which points to the need to preserve their species. Clearly societal needs are considered.
You may be right partly
"12.—(1) A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void."
Though I believe that ROM can void a marriage without going to court. At the time of marriage, it was valid as they were indeed man and women. WC is silent however if one party changes sex after marriage. If the law is indeed silent, ROM has no right to void it. They might have overstepped their remit unless had grounds to believe or evidence that the timing or circumstances was contrived to apply for the HDB flat.
As to their rights and entitlement as a citizen, its a different set of arguments. The fact is that laws and cultures are driven by the majority is a factor. I am sure everyone has their views. It noteworthy that OZ Aborigines have quiet a sophisticated structure of prohibited unions which points to the need to preserve their species. Clearly societal needs are considered.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Good point. The WC does not specifically preclude third parties from submitting a writ; it simply says 'any husband or wife'. Here's the exact wording of Section 104 of the WC:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...2dbba" Status:inforce Depth:0;rec=0#pr104-he-.
Good point. The WC does not specifically preclude third parties from submitting a writ; it simply says 'any husband or wife'. Here's the exact wording of Section 104 of the WC:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...2dbba" Status:inforce Depth:0;rec=0#pr104-he-.
Writ for nullity of marriage
104. Any husband or wife may file a writ claiming for a judgment of nullity in respect of his or her marriage.
104. Any husband or wife may file a writ claiming for a judgment of nullity in respect of his or her marriage.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
This is key. It was a valid marriage at the time of solemnization. Any voidable grounds arising after marriage will have to be dealt with by the courts. The WC is silent on sex change after marriage, but does not exclude it as a voidable ground.
Wrong. Even if this were so, ROM has no right to reverse its registration of the marriage to placate HDB. It would have to apply for nullity to be granted by the court before getting back to the HDB. It has no remit to act on behalf of the HDB.
HDB also has the right to reject an application if it suspects a sham marriage. Of course if the other party sues, the matter will have to be settled by the courts.
That wasn't the issue under contention with PTADER. Minority rights – including gay rights – are an issue that can't be settled by legalistic arguments alone. Historical, political, social and cultural-religious norms will have to be taken into account when enacting such legislation.
This is key. It was a valid marriage at the time of solemnization. Any voidable grounds arising after marriage will have to be dealt with by the courts. The WC is silent on sex change after marriage, but does not exclude it as a voidable ground.
Wrong. Even if this were so, ROM has no right to reverse its registration of the marriage to placate HDB. It would have to apply for nullity to be granted by the court before getting back to the HDB. It has no remit to act on behalf of the HDB.
HDB also has the right to reject an application if it suspects a sham marriage. Of course if the other party sues, the matter will have to be settled by the courts.
That wasn't the issue under contention with PTADER. Minority rights – including gay rights – are an issue that can't be settled by legalistic arguments alone. Historical, political, social and cultural-religious norms will have to be taken into account when enacting such legislation.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
The rift between cisgendered and transgendered members of the LGBT community has been brewing for some time. Things came to a head in 2015 when The Danish Girl was released, because a cisgendered male, Eddie Redmayne, was cast to portray a transgendered character (Lili Elbe). Redmayne played the role to critical acclaim and was nominated for an Oscar, but this stoked the flames further, both within the community, and between the community and 'mainstream' society which is still perceived to be prejudiced against LGBT.
Basically cisgendered gays are seen to have it good – they don't have an identity crisis, they can screw who they want, (modern western) society largely does not discriminate against them, they're able to hold down jobs, and even get married in some jurisdictions.
Transgendered people have it a whole lot worse: dangers of sex change, lifelong hormone replacement, lack of acceptance from society, no jobs, no legal provision for gender reassignment, and even imprisonment in some countries. Something like whether to go to the gents' or ladies' in public can become a highly charged issue.
The rift between cisgendered and transgendered members of the LGBT community has been brewing for some time. Things came to a head in 2015 when The Danish Girl was released, because a cisgendered male, Eddie Redmayne, was cast to portray a transgendered character (Lili Elbe). Redmayne played the role to critical acclaim and was nominated for an Oscar, but this stoked the flames further, both within the community, and between the community and 'mainstream' society which is still perceived to be prejudiced against LGBT.
Basically cisgendered gays are seen to have it good – they don't have an identity crisis, they can screw who they want, (modern western) society largely does not discriminate against them, they're able to hold down jobs, and even get married in some jurisdictions.
Transgendered people have it a whole lot worse: dangers of sex change, lifelong hormone replacement, lack of acceptance from society, no jobs, no legal provision for gender reassignment, and even imprisonment in some countries. Something like whether to go to the gents' or ladies' in public can become a highly charged issue.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Void and annulment are 2 different things. When something is made void, it means that the status or recognition accorded was wrongly or mistakenly given. It applies to everything and not just marriages. It appears that the authorities. are applying 2 conditions - at that time and thereon and it's the second that they had fallen foul off which to me is contentiontious as the law is silent on it.
"Minority rights"is not a catch-all phrase though it has been usurped by some individuals that feel a sense of personal entitlement on any and everything. Playing the victim is another noticeable trait. At the end of the day society decides.
Void and annulment are 2 different things. When something is made void, it means that the status or recognition accorded was wrongly or mistakenly given. It applies to everything and not just marriages. It appears that the authorities. are applying 2 conditions - at that time and thereon and it's the second that they had fallen foul off which to me is contentiontious as the law is silent on it.
"Minority rights"is not a catch-all phrase though it has been usurped by some individuals that feel a sense of personal entitlement on any and everything. Playing the victim is another noticeable trait. At the end of the day society decides.
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
If you bother to click on the link, you will realise it's not my quote but is taken from the ROM's website.
Once again, the term "annulment" does not equate to "void". You need to get this clear in your head. Annulments of marriages are carried out in court. It's between a married couple. It is not a function of ROM. Section 104 of the WC even goes so far as to effectively specify what constitutes a "married couple" for the purpose of annulments, i.e. "any husband or wife":
[TBC]
If you bother to click on the link, you will realise it's not my quote but is taken from the ROM's website.
Once again, the term "annulment" does not equate to "void". You need to get this clear in your head. Annulments of marriages are carried out in court. It's between a married couple. It is not a function of ROM. Section 104 of the WC even goes so far as to effectively specify what constitutes a "married couple" for the purpose of annulments, i.e. "any husband or wife":
"104. Any husband or wife may file a writ claiming for a judgment of nullity in respect of his or her marriage."
This effectively means that the Courts are not empowered to rule on this should these two confused faggots decide to annul their "marriage", i.e. assuming it was valid in the first place. This is since the "husband" is missing from the equation. Or unless you want to live in a make believe world and claim that one of these two couple, both with a pair of tits and a pussy each, stands before a judge as a "husband".
[TBC]
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Contd...
Now, let's get on to the issue of whether ROM can declare marriages as "void".
Sections 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22, etc deal with the issue of what gives rise to, or constitutes a "void" marriage. So contrary to your mistaken belief, ROM is empowered under the WC to declare a marriage "void", as it has done before. Just because this case involves two faggots does not mean ROM suddenly becomes powerless and helpless.
Next, let's get on to the issue of whether ROM was empowered to declare this particular marriage as "void". I will deal with the arguments that have been offered so far.
1st argument:
The marriage has already been solemnized by ROM, hence it cannot be "voided".
As I have explained in the preceding paragraph, this is false.
[TBC]
Contd...
Now, let's get on to the issue of whether ROM can declare marriages as "void".
Sections 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22, etc deal with the issue of what gives rise to, or constitutes a "void" marriage. So contrary to your mistaken belief, ROM is empowered under the WC to declare a marriage "void", as it has done before. Just because this case involves two faggots does not mean ROM suddenly becomes powerless and helpless.
Next, let's get on to the issue of whether ROM was empowered to declare this particular marriage as "void". I will deal with the arguments that have been offered so far.
1st argument:
The marriage has already been solemnized by ROM, hence it cannot be "voided".
As I have explained in the preceding paragraph, this is false.
[TBC]
Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria
Contd...
2nd argument:
“We have a law that says that marriage is between a man and woman, but the problem is that the registry went more than that,” said Chong. “They said can get married only if they want to remain a man and woman, but that is not in the law.”
This is a particularly myopic and stupid argument. The first schedule "Kindred and affinity, prohibited degrees of relationship" stops at the third generation level. It does not cover the fourth generation. It does not explicitly state that an old and wrinkled man is not allowed to marry his great-granddaughter, or a voracious cougar to marry her sister's son's son's son, i.e. her great-grandnephew.
Do we then stupidly proclaim that such incestuous marriages are acceptable as it "is not in the law"? We don't. Instead we recognise that the law has not caught up with medical advances that result in longer lifespans and which will allow a man or a woman at great-grandparents age to continue fucking wantonly like young virile studs and sluts.
[TBC]
Contd...
2nd argument:
“We have a law that says that marriage is between a man and woman, but the problem is that the registry went more than that,” said Chong. “They said can get married only if they want to remain a man and woman, but that is not in the law.”
This is a particularly myopic and stupid argument. The first schedule "Kindred and affinity, prohibited degrees of relationship" stops at the third generation level. It does not cover the fourth generation. It does not explicitly state that an old and wrinkled man is not allowed to marry his great-granddaughter, or a voracious cougar to marry her sister's son's son's son, i.e. her great-grandnephew.
Do we then stupidly proclaim that such incestuous marriages are acceptable as it "is not in the law"? We don't. Instead we recognise that the law has not caught up with medical advances that result in longer lifespans and which will allow a man or a woman at great-grandparents age to continue fucking wantonly like young virile studs and sluts.
[TBC]
Similar threads
