On the topic of that financially responsible state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage...Does anyone know how this applies to people who have surgically changed their gender?
Let's examine this with a hypothetical case: Suppose we start with a man, Jack. Jack goes through the long process of changing his gender and is now Jill, a woman. Certainly by appearance, action, and (I believe) legal status.
So can Jill now marry a man according to this amendment? After all, she looks and acts like a woman. But hold on. If a DNA test were performed she would be a he and that wouldn't fly under the amendment.
So then, according to the amendment and DNA, Jill must marry a woman. But wait a second, that would be technically and constitutionally correct but would have the appearance of a same sex marriage. And that, as we all know, is the sole reason for all problems in this country.
And does this mean that Virginia will need to do DNA testing before recognizing the marital status of every citizen? Without such genetic proof there really isn't a good way to tell what gender a person really is and therefore if their marriage is legitimate.
Life is far more complicated than some of these people want to make it.
I cannot help but think of the Murphy Brown episode in response to Dan Quayle's criticism, which showed all kinds of non-traditional families, and ended with a truck dumping potatoes outside the White House.
There is so much more I COULD say, but I'll behave myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: teacherken @ July 03, 2006 at 13:08:12 MST
No need to behave here...