No you can't have your cake or eat it either

A woman in Delaware has been ordered to pay child support for a child who her female partner gave birth to as a result of in-vitro fertilization. Delaware does not legally recognize same sex partnerships. Now the child support may be a legitimate claim but isn't the state trying to play both sides of the tennis match here. We don't recognize the union, but we'll use the union as justification for you paying child support.

The root problem here is that the legal definition of a union is based on the religious definition. No one wants to change that because then we'd have to admit that there are different possibilities.

In a similar situation, a transgendered woman (that's a man who surgically was been made a woman) who was legally married in the state of Texas to a man was denied any portion of his estate. The court opined that marriage in Texas was defined as an act between a man and a woman. Since neither party was born a woman the marriage was not legal.

I thought it would be a really good idea for all of the transgendered persons in Texas to go to the statehouse. All of the transgendered women could go the men's room and stand beside the senators while they tried to use the urinals. Since they were born men, they legally should be going to the men's room. Meanwhile all the transgendered men could go into the ladies room and shave. I'm sure the female senators won't at all mind using the stalls or straightening their pantyhose while the guys are using the sinks.

I guess according to the Texas definition hermaphrodites could marry anyone they want. Hell, maybe even one of each.

"It's called direct action and it comes to us highly recommended."
--Utah Phillips