The "Men" They Married

In September 2000, two women joyfully headed out of the California state appeals court to formalize their union. The ruling declared that the couple could obtain a legal marriage license, and that Jessica Wicks could officially take Robin Manhart Wicks as her wife. (1) No, this is no terminological oversight. It was the same kind of marriage license as the one issued to every Mr. and Mrs. throughout the states (Vermont’s “Mrs. and Mrs.” are a case apart). And yes, this scene did take place in the Golden State, not next door to New Hampshire. California law to date still only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman. The appeals court quite agreed. Confused? That’s not surprising. Anything turns hazy once the terms “man” and “woman” become a matter of opinion.

In this particular case, “Jessica” was actually born a man. Any chromosome of his body would tell you as much, for all the feminization he later underwent as a transsexual. That basic bit of data sufficed for the court. According to the ruling, gender is determined by chromosomes, not by genitals. So, technically, the union between “Jessica” and Robin was a legal marriage of a man and a woman. The ironic twist is that once past the court house steps any reference to a transsexual as “technically a man” would surely be considered an insult. (2) Go figure.

The British court system found itself trying to make head or tail of a similar situation the previous March. (3) The transsexual partner presented a birth certificate as proof that “she” had been born a man and had later undergone a sex change operation. In that case, the court ruling concluded, may the law bless them both.

At least the courts were trying to show some kind of coherence. A marriage is a marriage only if it involves a man and a woman. And a man is a man, no matter how mutilated, outwardly mutated, or bedecked with make up, heels, and bridal train. From the logical and juridical point of view, so far, so good. Sort of. Whichever way we look at it, we still have the “dandelion phenomenon”. You can cut a bouquet of weeds and call them roses, but the roots of the problem remain untouched. It’s not just a matter of what makes men, women, and marriage legally recognizable. It’s really a question of the essence of manhood, womanhood, and marriage that the law is meant to build on and protect. Which comes first: the human law or the humans who make the law?

Transsexuals, homosexuals and lesbians worldwide claimed those marriage certificates as victories. The court decisions haven’t changed any laws (the gay lobby is still working on it), but they have stuck another handhold on public opinion. Precedent, veridical or misconstrued, tends to spread on the winds like dandelion seeds.

The same winds were blowing in Australia at the beginning of October 2001. And they blew the very definition of maleness into the category of the archaic. This time, a woman and a female-to-male transsexual were fighting to have the Family Court declare their union as a valid marriage. In 1998 the so-called husband was even issued a new birth certificate that indicates her sex as a male. (4)

Australia’s 1961 Marriage Act defines “man” as a person born a male. The 1971 Corbett decision in England reaffirmed that guideline. Justice Richard Chisholm, however, said that “man” should be based on the contemporary meaning, not on an obsolete ideology.

The judge called attention to the fact that 39 witnesses testified in favor of “Kevin”. “They see him and think of him as a man, doing what men do. They are describing what they see in Kevin. And what they see is a man,” he stated. Justice Chisholm concluded that there is no compelling reason to think that “if a person is a male or female at birth, the person must be a male or female at the date of the marriage.”

What is that supposed to mean? Maybe we could sum it up like this: “I think, and they think, and the majority think…therefore I am.” If human nature is just a sum total of variable perceptions and opinions, and if today we could be who we were not yesterday, that would mean pulling the rug out from under all personal identities, interpersonal relationships and commitments. For example, if “Kevin” all of a sudden decided to switch back to being a woman, that would automatically dissolve the legality of his “marriage”, wouldn’t it? And would he or she be the legal father or the legal mother of the children his or her “wife” conceived by in vitro fertilization? It’s a dizzying series of speculations.

The winds are swirling, and the ubiquitous dandelions seeds dance with them. But that can’t stop us from keeping our heads, planting our feet firmly on the ground, and taking time to enjoy the real roses.

SOURCES:
1. USA Today, Sept 6, 2000 “Woman, transsexual get a marriage license”
2. For example, see the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD)’s guidelines for media coverage of new CBS drama series, "The Education of Max Bickford". One of the characters is a sex-change man called “Erica”; cfr. http://www.frc.org/get/cu01j1.cfm#title3
3. CWNews.com, March 24, 2000 “British Marriage for Woman and Sex-change Man”
4. The Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2001; full text of the judgment can be found at www.familycourt.gov.au