Australian Woman Shares Heartbreaking Status About Same-Sex Marriage After Wife Dies In Car Accident

Marriage equality is still a distant dream for many people around the world, as Lara Ryan truly realised when her wife, Elise, died in a tragic car accident. The pair, from Sydney, had a wedding ceremony and have two children together, but as same-sex marriage is not legally recognised in Australia, they could never be officially married. On Facebook, Lara said the pair had "never been political" and didn't really think too much about their official marital status in the past. But after Elise died when a car drove into her on the pavement, Lara felt the full burden of injustice.

"Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write spouse on incident reports," she said. "I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day)."



Try It


Change your profile picture to show support forAustralian Marriage Equality.





Lara Ryan
on Monday
This is why.
Because having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write Spouse on incident reports.
I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day).
I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room "She is my wife, I know it's not legal but she is my wife!"
Because we were never political, we just did our thing, did our life our way and tried to live by example to shift peoples hearts rather than pushing agendas. BUT the amount of freaking paper work I am having to do to secure mine and my children's future welfare is just ridiculous when all it would take is one marriage certificate.
And most of all because I love her, and she has been my every day for ten years, She is the mother of our two girls, she is the future I dreamed of and she is my safe place to land.
Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always.
The world is harsh enough.
Feel free to share widely - ‪#‎thisiswhy‬#


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/02/lara-ryan-facebook-status-on-same-sex-marriage_n_9364322.html

That's when you realise how backward some places and people still are.
Poor woman.

eddie wrote:That's when you realise how backward some places and people still are.
Poor woman.

Yep, must be heartbreaking for her

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:That's when you realise how backward some places and people still are.
Poor woman.

Yep, must be heartbreaking for her

To not be acknowledged for being a person's spouse and co-parent must feel like a kick in the heart when your heart is already broken.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yep, must be heartbreaking for her

To not be acknowledged for being a person's spouse and co-parent must feel like a kick in the heart when your heart is already broken.

Agree totally and this is supposed to be a progressive nation

Clearly not

But they are legally de factos the Progressive move away from marriage ALTOGETHER

I don't really support same sex marriage Because I dont not support marriage but I support same sex couples.

I understand that You to Twits cannot get your head around and ACTUAL Progressive movement. just want to push the conservative regressive agenda forcing the same Abrahamist Institution down everyones throat.

AND as typical, these stories only ever come from the UK trying to convinvce themselves they are still on par with the glorious convicts.

Veya I wasn't even bad-mouthing Australia?
I was just feeling sorry for the woman who was widowed.
It hardly mattered to me where she came from.

veya_victaous wrote:But they are legally de factos the Progressive move away from marriage ALTOGETHER

I don't really support same sex marriage Because I dont not support marriage but I support same sex couples.

I understand that You to Twits cannot get your head around and ACTUAL Progressive movement. just want to push the conservative regressive agenda forcing the same Abrahamist Institution down everyones throat.

AND as typical, these stories only ever come from the UK trying to convinvce themselves they are still on par with the glorious convicts.

On a par?

Not in a million years, we far exceed you progressively

What a weird view also

No ideas what you have against marriage, but to many it means more than just a day, as its a symbol for their love for each other, one they want to last for the rest of the lives

eddie wrote:Veya I wasn't even bad-mouthing Australia?
I was just feeling sorry for the woman who was widowed.
It hardly mattered to me where she came from.

No,  eddie...

It's not you, but Didge who was baiting veya, (and me, to a lesser degree..) on here..

IF  sassy is being "racist" in her dislike of Israel and Zionism, as Didge continually claims-- then SURELY Didge is being equally racist in his costant vilification of us poor Aussies ?

In Didge's case, he wants one rule for himself, and another for everybody else !


Pot, kettle, black..

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:But they are legally de factos the Progressive move away from marriage ALTOGETHER

I don't really support same sex marriage Because I dont not support marriage but I support same sex couples.

I understand that You to Twits cannot get your head around and ACTUAL Progressive movement. just want to push the conservative regressive agenda forcing the same Abrahamist Institution down everyones throat.

AND as typical, these stories only ever come from the UK trying to convinvce themselves they are still on par with the glorious convicts.

On a par?

Not in a million years, we far exceed you progressively

What a weird view also

No ideas what you have against marriage, but to many it means more than just a day, as its a symbol for their love for each other, one they want to last for the rest of the lives

MORE outright lies and bigotry from Didge's side...

Yet again;   no surprises there..

@Didge


How can you even Claim to be Progressive IF you don’t Know the Massive issues with the Abrahamist Patriarchal Pseudo-slavery supporting Institution like 'holy' matrimony?

@Wolf
I now understand Why you always had a go at these Racsit fools

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:But they are legally de factos the Progressive move away from marriage ALTOGETHER

I don't really support same sex marriage Because I dont not support marriage but I support same sex couples.

I understand that You to Twits cannot get your head around and ACTUAL Progressive movement. just want to push the conservative regressive agenda forcing the same Abrahamist Institution down everyones throat.

AND as typical, these stories only ever come from the UK trying to convinvce themselves they are still on par with the glorious convicts.

On a par?

Not in a million years, we far exceed you progressively

What a weird view also

No ideas what you have against marriage, but to many it means more than just a day, as its a symbol for their love for each other, one they want to last for the rest of the lives

is it ?
you can marry someone without loving them people do it every day.
marriage is a commitment, that`s usually taken out of love, but not exclusively

not only that but most poor people don't that doesn't mean they don't love each other!!! they live together and have 6 kids why do they need Some Archaic Fairy-tale based institution to give them a certificate?
 
According to Didge only those that can afford a ridiculous wasteful day actually love each other... probably still supports making 'bastards' outcasts. Bloody Regressive Wanker (RW) Supports propping up Abrahamist institution and allowing them to control 'love'...
 
Love is between people!!!! No Church or State needs to get in-between!!!!

veya_victaous wrote:@Didge


How can you even Claim to be Progressive IF you don’t Know the Massive issues with the Abrahamist Patriarchal Pseudo-slavery supporting Institution like 'holy' matrimony?

@Wolf
I now understand Why you always had a go at these Racsit fools

Marriage is older than religion so your point is plainly daft

Are you telling me I have to marry in a church?

Nope

But then again I am not surprised you wrongly associate marriage to religion when its the other way round that it was incorporated as a ceremony

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:



On a par?

Not in a million years, we far exceed you progressively

What a weird view also

No ideas what you have against marriage, but to many it means more than just a day, as its a symbol for their love for each other, one they want to last for the rest of the lives

is it ?
you can marry someone without loving them people do it every day.
marriage is a commitment, that`s usually taken out of love, but not exclusively

Its is for the vast majority of people

Never said you could not marry out of love but it is a commitment ti love, a contract

I fail to see your utterly irrelevant point, is just daft

veya_victaous wrote:not only that but most poor people don't that doesn't mean they don't love each other!!! they live together and have 6 kids why do they need Some Archaic Fairy-tale based institution to give them a certificate?
 
According to Didge only those that can afford a ridiculous wasteful day actually love each other... probably still supports making 'bastards' outcasts. Bloody Regressive Wanker (RW) Supports propping up Abrahamist institution and allowing them to control 'love'...
 
Love is between people!!!! No Church or State needs to get in-between!!!!

Made up, show me where I said that?

Never did?

Gibberish
You see this is why you are so ignorant Veya, you constantly make unfounded claims on people

So basically now all those married, have been wasted by such an enjoyable day as their wedding

Also back up every single claim you made above with stats

If not its further proof you are an idiot

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:



On a par?

Not in a million years, we far exceed you progressively

What a weird view also

No ideas what you have against marriage, but to many it means more than just a day, as its a symbol for their love for each other, one they want to last for the rest of the lives

MORE outright lies and bigotry from Didge's side...

Yet again;   no surprises there..

Really, so much so you cannot reason why multi id and who is not bee

Did you give your email to Ben yet, what is was as Bee before he left?

No

So is anyone claiming here that this couple was wrong to marry then?

I suggest you contact her on the link and tell her its a waste of time

That also she should get over it as some do not marry for love

Then let me know how you got on, after further upsetting her

veya_victaous wrote:not only that but most poor people don't that doesn't mean they don't love each other!!! they live together and have 6 kids why do they need Some Archaic Fairy-tale based institution to give them a certificate?

Totally agree
 
According to Didge only those that can afford a ridiculous wasteful day actually love each other...(yea patently rubbish of course) probably still supports making 'bastards' outcasts. Bloody Regressive Wanker (RW) Supports propping up Abrahamist institution and allowing them to control 'love'...

or rather who can love whom ,rather than controlling the emotion
 
Love is between people!!!! No Church or State needs to get in-between!!!!

No church I agree
But state not so sure ?
i don't mean in the love controlling way i am thinking more in a legal obligations and rights way  
and if a formal,civil or religious marriage is the way you choose to commemorate that commitment fine
but as to religions and states like say Russia forbidding this and forbidding that between two consenting adults who love each other


yea get ta feck

Also my parents were very poor and had 11 children.
They could not afford to have a wedding, but they still got married, because they loved each other and loved each other until the day my father died.
You see what some here fail to grasp is that they did so and always placed us first, even though we had little money.
The rest of my family is religious, to them it is something important as part of their faith, though again it was incorporated into the Catholic church as a ceremony

It shows people really do not even read the bible.
Many marriages were not even religious ceremonies, until again religion incorporated as part of the faith.
Why do people wrongly associated religion to marriage, which is what the homophobes constantly wrongly claim to deny homosexuals the right to marry?

Go figure


One last point, when you are in love, money does not champion love and if people place more on money than they do love, then there is something fundamentally wrong in how they clearly do not understand love at all.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yep, must be heartbreaking for her

To not be acknowledged for being a person's spouse and co-parent must feel like a kick in the heart when your heart is already broken.

Really now, eds  ?!?

Let's just consider the facts, shall we :

They weren't married;
She is claiming a defacto relationship;
Down here, a couple must be co-habiting for at least 6 months to be legally recognised as a defacto couple, with that recognition increasing between a year up to 5 years...

ISN'T it just as likely that she would have had the same problems in Britain, the USA, Canada or France, and even more in places like Ireland, Italy, or anywhere in Eastern Europe ?

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

MORE outright lies and bigotry from Didge's side...

Yet again;   no surprises there..

Really, so much so you cannot reason why multi id and who is not bee

Did you give your email to Ben yet, what is was as Bee before he left?

No

YOU'RE a congenital idiot,  Didgeri Dodger !!!

One has to give an email address to join here, and that has to be confirmed before joining..

IF Ben had any doubts about my id and location, he needs only check whete the IP address is originating from.

IF Ben and veya then wanted to double check, it would only take a phone call from veya, as he only lives about 150 kms from here !

(Also,  if you care to check the 3 relevant IDs on the members list, you will find that there is no overlaps - I've only ever used one ID on here at any one time..).

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really, so much so you cannot reason why multi id and who is not bee

Did you give your email to Ben yet, what is was as Bee before he left?

No

YOU'RE a congenital idiot,  Didgeri Dodger !!!

One has to give an email address to join here, and that has to be confirmed before joining..

IF Ben had any doubts about my id and location, he needs only check whete the IP address is originating from.

IF Ben and veya then wanted to double check, it would only take a phone call from veya, as he only lives about 150 kms from here !

(Also,  if you care to check the 3 relevant IDs on the members list, you will find that there is no overlaps - I've only ever used one ID on here at any one time..).

No I am exposing you and very easily so

Give Ben what was Bee's email address from that account that is still active, this should be very easy for you if you claim to be Bee

Are you claiming you are using your original email?

Because I know that to be false as Bee's account is still active lol

It would not allow you to do so

This is why I know you are a charlatan that hails not from Aus, but sunny California

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

To not be acknowledged for being a person's spouse and co-parent must feel like a kick in the heart when your heart is already broken.

Really now, eds  ?!?

Let's just consider the facts, shall we :

They weren't married;
She is claiming a defacto relationship;
Down here, a couple must be co-habiting for at least 6 months to be legally recognised as a defacto couple, with that recognition increasing between a year up to 5 years...

ISN'T it just as likely that she would have had the same problems in Britain, the USA, Canada or France, and even more in places like Ireland, Italy, or anywhere in Eastern Europe ?

They were married Quillbee

Again it shows you are not Australian by the above failure to understand the legality is different per state in Aus

Its funny when an American tries and fails poorly to pull off they off they are Australian lol

The point is that they weren't legally married. We don't have that de facto thing in the UK.

They were married

For people to deny this is like saying they were not legally in love

Didge wrote:They were married

For people to deny this is like saying they were not legally in love

They weren't legally married. Marriage isn't just a big love in, it's also a legal contract, and those two didn't have such a contract. You can call someone your wife if you want to though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:They were married

For people to deny this is like saying they were not legally in love

They weren't legally married. Marriage isn't just a big love in, it's also a legal contract, and those two didn't have such a contract. You can call someone your wife if you want to though.

They were married

Marriage is about two people being in love committing to that love through marriage

Who are you to say they were not married

legality does not come into it

They married through a ceremony, that is what matters

Stuff the backwards regressive Australian law

You can never claim they were not married

No - marriage is a legal contract Didge, and they had no such contract.

I'm not sure what difference it made to this lady tbh. I suppose in a hospital situation they might not have let her make any decisions or something. In UK hospitals they don't always like giving info to non-relatives - blood relatives or legal relatives like a legal spouse.

Raggamuffin wrote:No - marriage is a legal contract Didge, and they had no such contract.

Gibberish

Marriage was not original a legal contract, this came later.
So basically its a country denying their legal standing.
They have a contract between themselves which is what a marriage is

The insults have started, so forget it Didge. You clearly don't know what a legal contract is.

Raggamuffin wrote:The insults have started, so forget it Didge. You clearly don't know what a legal contract is.

I know very well what they are

You seem to think something has to be binding through law
It does not between people
In this country, do you have to be married, where a couple has resided together for over 6 months to be treated as if they were in a contract like marriage?
The simple answer is no, hence why the UK is far more progressive than Aus
Are you seriously telling me people cannot have contracts between two individuals?
They can in many aspects from work done to anything.
All this is in reality is the Austrian legal system denying them their rightful legal status through the contract they made to each other

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The insults have started, so forget it Didge. You clearly don't know what a legal contract is.

I know very well what they are

You seem to think something has to be binding through law
It does not between people
In this country, do you have to be married, where a couple has resided together for over 6 months to be treated as if they were in a contract like marriage?
The simple answer is no, hence why the UK is far more progressive than Aus
Are you seriously telling me people cannot have contracts between two individuals?
They can in many aspects from work done to anything.
All this is in reality is the Austrian legal system denying them their rightful legal status through the contract they made to each other

Er ... yes, you do have to be married in this country to be treated as if you're legally married. Cohabiting couples do not necessarily have the same legal rights, especially financial ones.

You can have a private contract between two people who aren't married obviously.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I know very well what they are

You seem to think something has to be binding through law
It does not between people
In this country, do you have to be married, where a couple has resided together for over 6 months to be treated as if they were in a contract like marriage?
The simple answer is no, hence why the UK is far more progressive than Aus
Are you seriously telling me people cannot have contracts between two individuals?
They can in many aspects from work done to anything.
All this is in reality is the Austrian legal system denying them their rightful legal status through the contract they made to each other

Er ... yes, you do have to be married in this country to be treated as if you're legally married. Cohabiting couples do not necessarily have the same legal rights, especially financial ones.

You can have a private contract between two people who aren't married obviously.

No you do not, that is false

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

They do not have all rights, but they have many of the same rights

There is no written contract with couples living together and its verbal, yet its binding in law

This couple made a contract between each other, of which again the Australian backward system denies, based on prejudice

Lots of people have to get married for legal reasons too.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Er ... yes, you do have to be married in this country to be treated as if you're legally married. Cohabiting couples do not necessarily have the same legal rights, especially financial ones.

You can have a private contract between two people who aren't married obviously.

No you do not, that is false

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

They do not have all rights, but they have many of the same rights

There is no written contract with couples living together and its verbal, yet its binding in law

This couple made a contract between each other, of which again the Australian backward system denies, based on prejudice

Generally speaking, you will have fewer rights if you're living together than if you're married.

For example, cohabiting couples can't claim spousal maintenance if they split up, and if one of them dies intestate, the other would not automatically inherit. There are issues re parental responsibility as well, although not relating to financial child support.

It seems that there's a different system in Australia, which I haven't looked into, but in England we don't have this de facto thing where people who cohabit get the same legal rights.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


No you do not, that is false

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

They do not have all rights, but they have many of the same rights

There is no written contract with couples living together and its verbal, yet its binding in law

This couple made a contract between each other, of which again the Australian backward system denies, based on prejudice

Generally speaking, you will have fewer rights if you're living together than if you're married.

For example, cohabiting couples can't claim spousal maintenance if they split up, and if one of them dies intestate, the other would not automatically inherit. There are issues re parental responsibility as well, although not relating to financial child support.

It seems that there's a different system in Australia, which I haven't looked into, but in England we don't have this de facto thing where people who cohabit get the same legal rights.

You still miss the point do you not?

When couples live together and are not married, they have many rights

So how come they have rights, not all that married couples have, but more so than couples that do not live together?

There is no written agreement but verbal

Hence the view to deny a status to this couple is blatant discrimination on every level

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



For example, cohabiting couples can't claim spousal maintenance if they split up, and if one of them dies intestate, the other would not automatically inherit. There are issues re parental responsibility as well, although not relating to financial child support.

It seems that there's a different system in Australia, which I haven't looked into, but in England we don't have this de facto thing where people who cohabit get the same legal rights.

You still miss the point do you not?

When couples live together and are not married, they have many rights

So how come they have rights, not all that married couples have, but more so than couples that do not live together?

There is no written agreement but verbal

Hence the view to deny a status to this couple is blatant discrimination on every level

Anyone has the right to call someone their wife if they want to. This particular story isn't a very good example tbh because it's really just about what someone wants to call their partner. If it was about legal issues, it would be different.

Let's just say that a cohabiting couple here split up. If the house belonged to one of them, the other would have no rights, unless they had contributed financially to the mortgage or to improvements. If they were married and got divorced, that wouldn't apply - if one spouse had never put a penny into the house they can still claim a share of it.

It appears to be different in Australia, so perhaps a cohabiting couple doesn't need to be married to get those rights. I haven't looked into it fully.

Bing married traditionally, is showing the world you are united and together - it's a nice way to seal your relationship as it were.
Lots of people though, do get married as a way to get more rights - like I said, for legal reasons.

Didge my parents were married 40 years when my dad died....and loved each other dearly, like your parents x

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



You still miss the point do you not?

When couples live together and are not married, they have many rights

So how come they have rights, not all that married couples have, but more so than couples that do not live together?

There is no written agreement but verbal

Hence the view to deny a status to this couple is blatant discrimination on every level

Anyone has the right to call someone their wife if they want to. This particular story isn't a very good example tbh because it's really just about what someone wants to call their partner. If it was about legal issues, it would be different.

Let's just say that a cohabiting couple here split up. If the house belonged to one of them, the other would have no rights, unless they had contributed financially to the mortgage or to improvements. If they were married and got divorced, that wouldn't apply - if one spouse had never put a penny into the house they can still claim a share of it.

It appears to be different in Australia, so perhaps a cohabiting couple doesn't need to be married to get those rights. I haven't looked into it fully.

Its about denying her the right and contract she made with her wife
Again you still miss the point, you can have as seen contracts as partners that are verbal, you do not need anything written to make it binding within the law. Hence the absurdity of the Australian Government

All the poor woman wants is to have some dignity here and some respect for her deceased wife to be allowed to state that she was her wife

eddie wrote:Bing married traditionally, is showing the world you are united and together - it's a nice way to seal your relationship as it were.
Lots of people though, do get married as a way to get more rights - like I said, for legal reasons.

Didge my parents were married 40 years when my dad died....and loved each other dearly, like your parents x

Thanks Eddie

yeah some do for many reasons, but I think most do so out of love. Some wrong do so out of lust and confuse to the two.

x

I'm not missing any point. If the woman wants to say she was her wife, she can. If it only matters what she can fill in on a form, I don't see why it's a big issue really. If it affects her legally in other ways, there might be more to discuss.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not missing any point. If the woman wants to say she was her wife, she can. If it only matters what she can fill in on a form, I don't see why it's a big issue really. If it affects her legally in other ways, there might be more to discuss.

Have you been married in love and then lost your husband?

Then how on earth can you say whether its a big deal or not

My mother lost my dad, he meant the world to her and she would have been devastated as much as she already was if she was denied being stated as his wife.

I bet Eddie will say the same

In the status she continued: "I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room: 'She is my wife, I know it's not legal but she is my wife!'

Why did she have to yell that? Did the hospital tell her that she no right to know what was going on because they weren't legally married? Unless that's the case, I don't see why someone would be worrying about what to call their partner in the middle of an emergency room.

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the status she continued: "I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room: 'She is my wife, I know it's not legal but she is my wife!'

Why did she have to yell that? Did the hospital tell her that she no right to know what was going on because they weren't legally married? Unless that's the case, I don't see why someone would be worrying about what to call their partner in the middle of an emergency room.

Again she just lost her wife in an accident

Losing someone close makes all of us want to scream, be angry, emotionally drain, basically every emotion fgoing

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why did she have to yell that? Did the hospital tell her that she no right to know what was going on because they weren't legally married? Unless that's the case, I don't see why someone would be worrying about what to call their partner in the middle of an emergency room.

Again she just lost her wife in an accident

Losing someone close makes all of us want to scream, be angry, emotionally drain, basically every emotion fgoing

Yes, but why did she have to say that in the emergency room? I'm sure the doctors had more to worry about than the "status" of the person they were treating.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again she just lost her wife in an accident

Losing someone close makes all of us want to scream, be angry, emotionally drain, basically every emotion fgoing

Yes, but why did she have to say that in the emergency room? I'm sure the doctors had more to worry about than the "status" of the person they were treating.

Again frustration and no doubt at her wits end at losing the love of her life

Seriously Rags, have you never felt or been through that where you lost someone close you loved?

Not knocking, but serious as to if you have experienced that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but why did she have to say that in the emergency room? I'm sure the doctors had more to worry about than the "status" of the person they were treating.

Again frustration and no doubt at her wits end at losing the love of her life

Seriously Rags, have you never felt or been through that where you lost someone close you loved?

Not knocking, but serious as to if you have experienced that?

I just don't see why someone would be going on about their marital status in the middle of the emergency room for no apparent reason. I wouldn't have thought it would be a priority, that's all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again frustration and no doubt at her wits end at losing the love of her life

Seriously Rags, have you never felt or been through that where you lost someone close you loved?

Not knocking, but serious as to if you have experienced that?

I just don't see why someone would be going on about their marital status in the middle of the emergency room for no apparent reason. I wouldn't have thought it would be a priority, that's all.

Who said it was for no reason

You are missing out a vital part


She said: “Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write Spouse on incident reports.
“I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby’s birth certificate (both on the same day).
“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!'”