Tuesday, June 24, 2008

For Digi...

As this is her milieu, I will refrain from comment and let her have at it:

VA Officials Weigh Charges In Gender-Uncertain Wedding

In a word...OY!
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

3 comments:

The Digital Hairshirt said...

This is a problem when Mn toys with Nature - as we have and can with "changing" the gender of a person - and the law has not caught up.

With regard to the marriage, it is void under state law. State law determines the guidelines to marriage within that state and since Virginia does not allow same-sex or transgender marriages, then that's it.

What's a "transgender marriage?" Well, I believe that if this issue is pushed, states - for legal purposes - could define an "other" category for gender and revise their laws thusly. After all, the lowly tomato is a fruit botanically but has been classifed a vegetable by the US Supreme Court in Vix v. Hedden (149 US. 304) for purposes of tariff laws.

I would imagine that a person might not like being classifed as "other", but I had a case where the opposing party liked "pre-op trannies", these being guys who had started hormone therapy and thus had begun growing breasts and losing facial hair, who dressed and acted as women, but who still have male genitalia. And some wanted to stay that way, sort of in a male-female limbo. Where does the law go with that? It could draw the line, so to speak, at genitalia, but then the argument arises that it is restricting "self-realization" and if a person wants to call themselves a girl and still pack a piece, who's to say otherwise?

Sure, laugh away - but when self-definition of gender becomes a protected cpnstitutional right, remember this post!

June 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Kit said...

Yep - it's definitely an issue that presents all sorts of interesting scenarios.

One of our business clients bought a house a few years ago from a "woman" and a lady he introduced as his sister (same last name). Turns out HE had just gone though the surgery in Thailand, and so he and his WIFE (no sister) were selling the house in advance of their divorce. My State Legislator friend represented our client the purchase (NY requires the parties in a RE transaction to be represented by counsel), and said it was all he could do throughout the closing, trying not to chuckle. Over cocktails later, I teased him: "Well, it's nice to know that you support same-sex marriage, Assemblyman..." He was a bit startled and said he hadn't really thought about it that way, and the next day he called to assure me that he researched it, and even though the dude was now a lady, his genetic markers still identify him as a man, so it's not really a "same sex" marriage.

Ugh.

I had to ask "So...who'd you have to call for clarification?" Hee hee!

June 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...

I think they should prosecute! Breaking the law is not a joke.

June 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)