Steve Stanton, city manager of Largo, Florida, since 1993, recently was fired after he announced his intention to have a sex-change operation. Interestingly, he has also declared his wife is behind him in this decision and he has no intention of divorcing her – but on Larry King Live, 4/13/07, he did announce they were separating. But is the legal status of the marriage up to him? If he has the surgery he’s legally a woman. And Florida does not recognize same-sex marriage. So . . .
Depends on how the state defines gender.
I think it’s in Texas where it’s defined by chromosome, so someone can marry their destination gender following a sex change.
This depends on the parsing of the definitions, that is, what the court says “sex” means.
A MtF transsexual is still genotypically male (XY). The purpose of the procedures, including the hormonal therapies, castration and vaginoplasty is to create the cosmetic aspects of being phenotypically female. It might come down to a sort of “grandfathering” the pre-existing marriage in to a same-sex scenario. Genetically, the new woman(legal) is still male(genetically). The legal redefinition of the transsexual is basically a social contract entreating society to treat the transsexual as a woman.
The courts seem to rule in favor of the prior legal sex. I recall a recent case, no cite, where a man sued to rescind/end his alimony agreement to his ex-wife, who is now a FtM transsexual.
As a general rule, courts are rather loathe to employ ex-post-facto rulings. While certain churches will annihilate a marriage if the basic grounds for the marriage were flawed or non-existent(annulment), the effect is to say that the marriage never existed.
At the time of the marriage, the erstwhile partners were legally of age, and were opposite sexed, as required. What the courts would do in such a case is cheerfully grant a divorce. But I’m not aware of a case where the court would force a divorce, at least not when the parties are happy to stay married, and not when the marriage was legal at its inception.
Debated here.
FYI, tangentially relevant Pit thread (devoted to the propriety or otherwise of firing Stanton).
At least it’s a relief to know he’s not some Ogdamn dyke! 
MISTER SLAVE: Mister Garrison, I’m gay! I don’t like vaginas!
I would think most trans people wouldn’t care to take advantage of a legal loophole that allowed them to be in a gay marriage, if it was based on an incorrect legal presumption. But then, I suppose that’s just how powerful the urge to marry one’s partner is.
Well, in this case Stanton is already married and he just wants to keep his wife for legal purposes – for the sake of the attendant benefits WRT insurance, income tax, etc., I assume; they’ve got the kids to think of.
If two individuals love one another and want to be together, what difference ought it make how they define their gender and sexuality, or even whether they define these at all? Isn’t “I like this individual” enough? The law is often an ass anyway. If it lets you live the way you want, never mind what reasoning it took to get there.
In this case, they may well love each other but they don’t want to be together.
See, this is where the whole marriage definition thing gets really blurred. Who would have ever thought, back when people started hooking up and societies started writing rules about said up-hooking, that the day would come when people could actually become a different person? I know it’s been argued on these threads that losing an arm or a leg doesn’t change the human being, so losing a penis and adding a vagina shouldn’t either. But I think it’s apples and oranges at that point. The differences between male and female aren’t just physical, they’re psychic and spiritual. A one-legged woman is still a woman. But a woman with a penis, testicles (operational or not), hairy, breastless chest and masculine name isn’t a woman, it’s a man, and that is a different human being than what started out. Even if the person claims, “But deep down inside, I’m the same person,” he/she is still a completely different person that what was presented to society.
Is there truly a genetic way to tell whether a specific grouping of muscle, bone and blood vessels is male or female? If so, then all the surgery in the world isn’t going to change that, and in that case I think we need to examine the ethics of even performing sex-change surgery. If there isn’t a way, then society needs to rewrite some rules about what a person is, because it does affect all of us.
Sunrazor, most of your assumptions, while commonplace, are simply false. Biological sex may be impossible to change at the root, but gender is social, so a person can appear full male and still be a woman, though few wish to live that way. You’re also, frankly, talking from a sort of personal-wisdom common-sense mentality that people tend to apply to this issue when they’re not familiar with the facts. The reason we don’t need to “examine the ethics” is that it’s been very established that it’s as unethical to withhold effective treatment for this condition as it is for any other. The medical establishment is okay with “sex changes” because they mean the difference between misery and death or happiness and life for most of the people who get them. Your philosophical ramblings about the immutable nature of the body don’t add up to years of scientific study and countless personal accounts. Too often, people decide to stay ignorant and cling to such mentality because it allows them to legitimize their discomfort with the condition.
Hmm, so wisdom and common sense are not only bad, they’re just plain wrong? Since you claim to have a firm grasp of the facts, answer the one clear question I asked – it is possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person “be” one thing but “appear” to be the other without surgery?
Your approach is starting to seem deliberately antagonistic, to me, especially as you’re twisting my words beyond all reason. Additionally, none of what you said matters as to whether it’s ethical to allow the only effective medical treatment for a defined and recognized medical condition. And yes, “common sense” is bad when relied on to the exclusion of facts, why shouldn’t it be? Human beings make notoriously bad witnesses. We don’t just uphold the scientific method as one of our greatest achievements because we like having computers to do so on. We have always needed tools to navigate and understand the universe.
My asking you for facts you claim to know shouldn’t antagonize you, it should offer you an opportunity to enlighten without belittling or resorting to broad philosophical double-talk. You still haven’t answered my question. I’ll ask it again. Is it possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person “be” one thing but “appear” to be the other without surgery?
Does anybody think this is an unfair question?
Sometimes, a baby with an XY chromosome pair (male) is born with female or indeterminate/hermaphroditic genitalia. Something went hinky during the gestation process. All human genitals start out as the same identical bit of fetal tissue, and then at some point it beings to develop one way or the other – basic high-school bio. Usually, the parents decide to raise the child as a girl, even if additional surgery is necessary to make the genitalia completely female.
I’ve never heard of a baby with an XX (female) pair being born with male genitalia, but I suppose it could be possible.
Does anybody think it is relevant to whether it’s ethical to withhold effective treatment, which was the assertion you made in order to slyly introduce your agenda? Your question puzzles me, because the answer you’re looking for supports the facts. It’s precisely because gender is a purely social phenomenon that it is mutable. I can tell why you’re doing this, now, though, so if you feel unsatisfied with my responses thus far I invite you to Pit me for it rather than continuing here.
Let’s remember this thread is about certain legal aspects of marriage as related to transsexuals, not the ethics or propriety of doing the surgery.
Nope, no pitting. Just trying to get facts. If the answer is “yes,” then the debate goes one way; if it is “no” then the debate goes another way. I’m sitting here with (believe it or not) an open mind waiting for new data on which I can base a better conclusion. If you are at all familiar with my posting history, you know I’ve been known to change my mind in the past.
Last chance, Ensign – is there a way?
Yep, the whole “ethics” thing was almost an after-thought in my first posting. But I need an answer to my question before I can begin to wrestle with any legal/social issues here.
Bear in mind, **BrainGlutton ** and Ensign, this is the first time I’ve ever given the whole sex-change issue any serious thought at all. I’m a beginner here.