Regarding this article it got me ta thinkin’, I don’t think this guy should get out of having to pay. His ex wife is now a man, she’s now a he, but “he” still spent 18 years with the guy.
“He” gave up any career to take care of him, to be a home maker. Now, I’m normally against things like this because I fight for the underdog, but a sex change doesn’t make that person a completely different person. What say you, Dopers?
I agree. Regardless of gender or sexual identity, the point of alimony is to keep the more dependent person in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Of course this was traditionally a wife who wasn’t expected to work outside the home, but if the idea is going to continue, gender doesn’t matter. Husbands receive alimony from more successful wives.
Whether alimony is an appropriate idea at all is a separate question.
No. I don’t think that he should get out of it because his ex had a sex-change. Based on my cursory glance at his statements, he is just using this as a reason to get out of paying alimony. Hell. the judge said that the state of Florida doesn’t recognize sex changes for the purposes of marriage anyhow.
I’m curious to read the opinion and I strongly suspect that this will be appealed.
I can’t imagine a justification for ending alimony which is not, in some flowery language, a statement that gender should matter in a legal context. Of course this runs afoul of equal protection and I would expect it to be drummed out of court in the first hearing.
Enjoy,
Steven
We asked our listeners on this morning’s show; men and women agreed that in principle, the ex-wife had changed the rules by getting a penis, but the law would probably be on his/her/its side. One listener astutely observed that alimony is an archaic practice based on the no-longer-true premise that wives depend on their husbands for support. Since women now have far greater economic success than ever before (listen, both the morning show host and I make less than our wives, and the sales reps – both women – out-earn us by about 20%) alimony shouldn’t even be a factor. But if the penis-bearing group really does earn 18% more than the non-penis-bearing group, well, Julio now has a penis, thus no need for alimony.
IMHO, alimony should be determined based upon the relative current earnings (as reasonably extrapolated into the future, too) of the parties, and take into account the support one spouse gave the other during the marriage. It should not otherwise be based upon the sexes of the parties, as such.
In this case, their separation agreement provided that he’d pay alimony until she (now after surgery a “he”) died or remarried. Neither has happened. He loses.
That’s got nothing to do with how much money he actually earns. In fact, I’d guess that there would be fewer jobs available to someone who is openly transgendered, just because of current attitudes toward them. In any case, it wasn’t a penis or vagina that was awarded alimony; it was a person and it was based on earning history and an established lifestyle. That doesn’t change simply because his gender changed.
In fact, we could say that his gender never changed internally. There were only external changes. Would you stop awarding alimony to someone who had skin grafts? Hair implants? Breast implants?
Right. The ex-wife didn’t suddenly gain years of job experience and training by becoming male. I doubt he’s making more money than before just by virtue of having SRS.
Of course not.
Legally, marriage is at heart a contractual relationship (which is one reason I don’t understand all the fuss about samesex marriage, but that’s another matter). The dissolution of the marriage simply gives rise to another contractual relationship, which is purely financial in nature.
The fact that one of the parties to a financial contract undergoes a medical procedure in no way changes the obligations of people who are contractually indebted to them. *(I guess there could be unusual “personal appearance” type contracts involving celebrities and such, but a standard marriage dissolution in no way falls into this category.) *
The ex-wife is the same individual under the law as prior to the procedure. “He” still owes all of “her” previous debts, and is entitled to everything previously owed “her.”
Think if it were the other way around - what if after the divorce the ex-husband became a woman? Is there any reason why that would absolve him of his responsibility to pay what he freely agreed to pay?
I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of several things:
First, the archaic, extortionist practice called alimony. Seriously, just having been married once upon a time entitles someone to a “lifestyle”? It might be true, but it ain’t right. Child support is one thing, but alimony, in this day and age? Raise your daughters to be educated, productive citizens and they won’t have to depend on some guy for a “lifestyle”.
Second, the pathetic attempt of the ex-husband to get out of his divorce contract. It’s a contract, asshole. You signed it. 'Nuff said there.
Finally, that anyone would seriously debate this. Come on, we used this as fodder for a RADIO MORNING SHOW!!! It ranks up there with fart jokes, Federline Updates and Heather Mills Trash Talk.
Sorry. I thought maybe it was a serious talk show.
Alimony is, by and large, a thing of the past. Maintenance is provided to spouses who need time to assimilate into the workforce. Many of those spouses gave up education and careers to further their partner’s career. Sure, there are slackers who simply weren’t motivated, but those people were given that lifestyle by their spouse. It is an agreement and as such, the lesser earning spouse has every right to expect to be compensated, at least for a while.
I am not going to hijack this threat with my intense anti-alimony position but I will say that up until alimony hit me personally in two situations, I too thought alimony was a thing of the past. Unfortunately it is only in the past for people who give up on their marriages before ten years. After that time, lifetime maintenance can and often is awarded. However, I can testify that it certainly is considered for both sexes. The one who works hard and gifts the other a nice life style loses.
Yes, I remember your alimony thread. It’s a sad fact that people are sometimes rewarded for bad behavior (or punished for enabling that behavior).
Look, home making is a nice fringe benefit, but what we all contract for in a marriage is a lifetime of satisfying sex first. Look men, how would you feel when you find out your life partner is really a man ! He(she) was quite deceptive.
I think that the deception alone, merits the annulment of the marriage contract , obligations and grounds to sue for damages.
Now that’s a bizarre argument. Are you sure you aren’t confusing “spouse” with “prostitute?” Anyway, it’s also totally irrelevant. The couple are divorced. Regardless of the gender of the ex-wife, there’s no sex occuring between them. What difference does it make what Mr. Silverwolf decides to do to his genitalia? Either way, Mr. Roach is never going to see it again.
Largely unsurprised.
This presupposes that the wife in question entered the marriage knowing that she was transexual, and planning to transition at some future date. As is generally the case, the person in question almost certainly realized that they were transexual relatively shortly before they began transitioning, and well after they had contracted the marriage. You might as well argue that a woman who seeks a divorce because they no longer love their husband has been deceptive, because when they married, they promised to love him forever.
I have to ask, out of sheer morbid curiosity: if the ex-wife had remained female, but come out as a lesbian, do you think that likewise would void the alimony agreement?
How much deception could there be in 18 years? If the sex you think is so key to a marriage was defficient because the wife felt more like a man, wouldn’t the husband have noticed it sooner than 18 years? She may have been unhappy with her sex as it was, but there was nothing in the article about what broke the couple apart in the first place. Even if it was sex (or lack of it), 18 years is a long time to take to find that out.
If the husband can prove the wife was getting it on with women while they were married we may have a horserace here. But nothing in the news story says there was any infidelity as a cause of the divorce. It seems to me the divorce contract was valid, and the husband has to pay.
Coming to the understanding that you’re transgendered doesn’t always happen early in life. There are outside pressures that confuse the issue for many. I would have to at least put half the blame on the husband for not knowing he married a man, if I were going to be fair.
Why not use ‘give’ instead of ‘gift’? Was this a typo?
I don’t see it as a typo, simply because the logistics of the keys is all wrong for it to be an accident.
I think it’s acceptable (if unconventional) to consider the lifestyle you provide a spouse to be a “gift.” However, if it’s viewed that way, it should be considered the way any other gift is; a freebie with no strings attached.
Why use ‘gift’ as a verb when ‘give’ conveys the exact same meaning? Why use ‘gift’ as a verb at all, for that matter?