Transgender Ga. official wins legal battle

[Terra_Cide]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081006..._politician;_ylt=AmmePvbHToPqHW17PcpDuGlH2ocA
----------------------------

A rather significant ruling, if you ask me.

 

[Wolfman1982]

isn´t it time to cut and past the text in ?

ATLANTA - Georgia's top court ruled in favor of a transgender politician who was slapped with a lawsuit by two political opponents who claimed she misled voters by running as a woman.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on Monday found that the two political opponents who filed the lawsuit failed to produce evidence of fraud, misconduct or illegal action after claiming that Michelle Bruce bamboozled voters by identifying herself as female.

"This is a great victory for me and anyone who believes in equality," Bruce said in a statement. "It gives me hope that the Georgia Supreme Court did what was right and did not buy into hate-based politics."

Bruce, who was believed to be the state's first transgender politician, landed one of four council seats in Riverdale, Ga. in 2003. Running unopposed, she pledged to attract more jobs and residents to the struggling town 12 miles south of Atlanta.

Last year, however, three people signed up to run against her, and she failed to capture enough votes to avoid a runoff against second-place finisher Wayne Hall.

The third-place finisher, Georgia Fuller, and a candidate in another race, Stan Harris, filed a lawsuit after the primary that identified Bruce as "Michael" and sought a new election.

It's unclear whether most voters knew of Bruce's transgender status before the lawsuit was filed. She has declined to say whether she has had surgery but said she has always identified herself as transgender.

"I'm Michelle," she said when the suit was filed. "I'm the same Michelle they elected four years ago."

Hall won the runoff, and Bruce blamed the lawsuit for her defeat.

Meanwhile, the complaint made its way through Georgia's legal system. In its decision Monday, the court ruled for Bruce and concluded that "none of these alleged irregularities is specific enough to cast doubts" on the election.

Gay rights groups said the lawsuit appears to be a first in the country.

"I am not aware of any other case involving the issue of whether a transgender candidate is defrauding the citizens," said Cole Thaler, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a gay rights group.

Bruce's attorneys said they felt vindicated by the ruling.

Michael King, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed and surprised by the decision.

"We think there were significant irregularities and misconduct to reverse the election," he said.

Bruce, meanwhile, said she is now taking courses at an online law school and hopes to again serve the public as an elected official.

"I still have a dream to serve my community," she said. "And I'm not giving up."

___

On the Net:

Georgia Supreme Court: http://www.gasupreme.us

(This version CORRECTS the reference to plaintiff Stan Harris.)

 

[Etoile]

Wow, that is REALLY excellent news. According to some websites, she was born intersexed. Unfortunately people understand that even LESS than they understand transsexualism, as evidenced by the kid in my Sociology class today who said "wait...you can be BOTH?" and was all horrified and grossed out. I could have kicked him.

 

[John Doe]

Wow, that is REALLY excellent news. According to some websites, she was born intersexed. Unfortunately people understand that even LESS than they understand transsexualism, as evidenced by the kid in my Sociology class today who said "wait...you can be BOTH?" and was all horrified and grossed out. I could have kicked him.

But you didn't? Slacker.

 

[Wolfman1982]

Wow, that is REALLY excellent news. According to some websites, she was born intersexed. Unfortunately people understand that even LESS than they understand transsexualism, as evidenced by the kid in my Sociology class today who said "wait...you can be BOTH?" and was all horrified and grossed out. I could have kicked him.

You did a wise thing, by not kicking him. But then again people are weird. So let it pass this time, and the next time do an extremely polite, but firm reaction at his remark next time, when it comes to GLBT issues.

 

[Etoile]

But you didn't? Slacker.

What can I say, I've been studying Gandhian principles of late.

You did a wise thing, by not kicking him. But then again people are weird. So let it pass this time, and the next time do an extremely polite, but firm reaction at his remark next time, when it comes to GLBT issues.

Oh, I had a LOT to say in class yesterday. I kind of think the teacher wished I would shut up! I had comments about nearly everything he had to say. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/pink-triangle.gif

 

[Wolfman1982]

Oh, I had a LOT to say in class yesterday. I kind of think the teacher wished I would shut up! I had comments about nearly everything he had to say. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/pink-triangle.gif

Well, perhaps I misunderstood your kicking part , since to me when you said kicking. I was thinking in physical terms, such as a kick in his behind. But I am happy you gave him a telling, since he did deserve the verbal beating you probably gave him. Since the physical one, can be worse for him and you. Because I think it is still illegal to kick the living shit out of a person, whether they deserve it or not. And he hasn´t attacked you with the first throw. The closest I come to a physical brawl with any one , now adays , is the "phantom sucker punch" I do to a person who deserves it. Meaning I am making a sucker punch in the air away from the person. So the person gets it, that the person is a joke and if it is a man, then also a jerk.

 

[Etoile]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood your kicking part , since to me when you said kicking. I was thinking in physical terms, such as a kick in his behind. But I am happy you gave him a telling, since he did deserve the verbal beating you probably gave him. Since the physical one, can be worse for him and you. Because I think it is still illegal to kick the living shit out of a person, whether they deserve it or not. And he hasn´t attacked you with the first throw. The closest I come to a physical brawl with any one , now adays , is the "phantom sucker punch" I do to a person who deserves it. Meaning I am making a sucker punch in the air away from the person. So the person gets it, that the person is a joke and if it is a man, then also a jerk.

I have never been violent in my life. Of course I would never kick someone physically - it was metaphorical. I wanted to kick him for being an ass, but I would never DO it. Like I said, I've been into satyagraha and Gandhian thought lately.

I didn't even talk to the guy about that particular issue. If the teacher had wanted to address the student's negative reaction to intersexuals, he could have done so. All of my talking in yesterday's class was in response to the teacher. There was some very good discussion and we could have done a lot more but he wanted to present all the material so I had to be quiet sometimes!

 

[John Doe]

What can I say, I've been studying Gandhian principles of late.

That explains it. Gandhi was lazy too.

 

[LusciousLoralie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081006..._politician;_ylt=AmmePvbHToPqHW17PcpDuGlH2ocA
----------------------------

A rather significant ruling, if you ask me.

fucking AWESOME!