This finger needs a ring! (soure)
… then it’s OK if the ‘woman’ is a guy in drag, right?

The couple walked into a Norfolk courthouse on a spring day, exchanged a few words, and within 10 minutes, were seemingly husband and wife.

It was an unremarkable ceremony – except that several weeks later, officials realized the shapely bride might not have been a woman.

Now authorities in Virginia, where same-sex marriages are illegal, are weighing whether to file misdemeanor charges against the couple, Antonio E. Blount, 31, and Justin L. McCain, 18. An announcement is expected this week.

Read the whole story here.

The people who are insisting that marriage is only valid if it is people of different sexes are asking for it. It might, in many states, be easier to recognize gender orientations beyond hetero male and female as additional ‘sexes’ (in courts) than to get legislatures to pass non-discriminatory bills.

Just as interesting would be the reaction in some legislatures….

Imagine this scenario. Imagine a couple where one person is roughly male or female and the other is too, but ‘transgenders’ … (yes, I’m using that as a verb here).

They get married. They get arrested. They get a lawyer.

Eventually, a court is convinced (by arguments made by a dream team consisting of Maggie Cassella, William Rubinstein, Benjamin Schatz and Tom Stoddard) that XX or XY plus same, transgenderd (that was a formula, of sorts) is a marriage between people of “opposite” sex (this will ultimately depend on what you mean by “opposite” of course). And thus legal.

Then, the fun starts when the legislature debates the wording of the new bill that makes sure that this does not happen again.

“The Commonwealth of Virgina herein defines members of the biological gender typically associated with two X chromosomes and in the absence of any discernible Y chromosomes by whichever means of discernment is common practice, who may also happen to present as or claim orientation towards or as femme lesbian, butch dyke, or straight trans crossdresser, not inclusive of surgically trangendered (see section 9 paragraph 4 of this code) or non female regendered transexual individuals, non-lesbian female clitoral hypertrophic individuals (to the exclusion of chicks with dicks, see section 14 paragraph 9 of the penal code), shall be deemed a woman in relation to laws, codes, or regulations pertaining to matrimony.”

… or words to that effect. Perhaps under these circumstances the legislature of such a state might just leave this issue alone and give up.

One can only hope.


  1. #1 PhysioProf
    June 23, 2008

    I like this, dude! Give ’em the old reductio!! HAHAHAHAH!

  2. #2 Tony P
    June 23, 2008

    That’s ok, here in RI its about to get much more interesting. When Casandra Ormiston brought her divorce petition against Margaret Chambers in the Superior court, Justice Patricia A. Hurst denied them the ability since the RI Supreme Court had already said the Family Court Act specified a man and woman.

    But Hurst did insert language into her ruling that since the plaintiff in the case was being denied rights under the RI Constitution (Article 1 Section 2, and Article 1 Section 5) that they could bring case forward on that basis and then due to inaction by the legislature and executive to move gay marriage and divorce forward we’d see the repeal of the Family Court Act on Constitutional grounds.

    It’s going to be an interesting summer. And of course the legislature chose to ignore it when they close session recently.

    The likely course of action is that Ormiston and Chambers will regroup and present on the basis of Constitutional rights denied, and then the legislature will have to return for an emergency session to re-pass Family Court law.

  3. #3 Eamon Knight
    June 23, 2008

    Don’t tell the poor buggers about XY females. Their heads might explode. And then we’ve got male/female chimeras….oh dear.

  4. #4 Zahra
    June 24, 2008

    This happened in Kansas. Basically, a man married a MTF transsexual (who was known to the biological male as a transsexual). J’Noel, the bride, had been given a sex change on her birth certificate outside of Kansas–that is, her birth certificate had been revised to declare her female. When the groom died, his kids took J’Noel to court, arguing that since she is a transsexual, the marriage was never valid in Kansas, and therefore she was not a legitimate heir. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed.

    Also, when we start talking about XX vs XY, it just becomes problematic, given the prevalence of “middlesexed” people, and people who are either XX or XY but have some other disorder that caused them to be raised as the opposite gender. So confusing.

  5. #5 Michael Ivy
    June 24, 2008

    Definately not legal here in MS. Funny the lenghts people will go to for LOVE.

  6. #6 Rose Colored Glasses
    June 24, 2008

    Marriage is binding only because a body of civil law regulates it. It can be compared to interstate commerc, or contracts, or real estate transactions. In contrast, while a christening is a sacred rite, it has no legal force whatsoever.

    Are XO females (Turner’s syndrome) legally allowed to marry? Since they are incapable of impregnation, then wouldn’t they be considered the husbands?

    I’m still hopeful that a hermaphrodite will come out publicly and sue for equal protection. For one, since physiology cannot be deemed a ‘lifestyle choice’, then denying rights to a group solely because of their physical nature will clash resoundingly with the entire idea of equal rights. For another, the religious will despise their god(s) for allowing what they themselves consider an ‘abomination’, something ‘unnatural’. (I hope they get migraines.)

  7. #7 Sheila
    June 24, 2008

    I was wondering what the difinition of a male/female was. Does it all come down to XX/XY? The doctors don’t perform those tasks at the time of birth, they just look and say boy or girl. What about the people who have three chomosomes? I guess they don’t have the right to marriage as they don’t fall into either XX/XY. Let’s face it, it’s not as easy as it looks.

  8. #8 Andrew
    June 24, 2008

    The underlying reality is far more complicated than the surface reality.

  9. #9 Jamie C.
    June 24, 2008

    Enjoyed your article very much. Wanted to explore your ideas when incorporating the following tags or brands: Transgendered, Transexual, Transvesite, Cross Dresser, Pan Sexual, and whatever other sexual tag or brand society seems to want to lable us. I mean what do you lable a guy that prefers a relationship with one of these special ladies? Also wanted to ask if the picture of the lovely lady was you? If so you have a devote admirer. Simply beautiful with a great mind to boot.
    Jamie in Central California

  10. #10 Greg Laden
    June 24, 2008

    The photograph above is me. (But not the one on this post. You have to go over the the left side of the page.)

    Click on ‘source’ to see a much better version of the picture above (I shrunk it and compressed it for the blog)

  11. #11 Dee
    June 25, 2008

    Actually, the State of Virginia is on a slippery slope here. If they don’t prosecute, it can be said that they condone same sex marriages. OK. Fine. But if they DO prosecute, they are acknowledging that a same sex marriage took place in their system. Why you ask? How can you prosecute someone for illegal marriage if the “marriage” is a nullity under the law? This is not marriage by fraud, false pretense or any other criminal act. It is an ATTEMPT by two people who cannot legally marry in the state to get married. Since that’s not possible, they cant be prosecuted for illegal marriage. If the State insists on this prosecution, they will be admitting that the couple is married. If they admit the couple is married, then guess what? The State of Virginia just sanctioned a same sex marriage. It’s sort of like arresting someone for murder when the deceased is still alive.

    Keep an eye on this one folks.

  12. #12 Greg Laden
    June 25, 2008

    I don’t think they are going to prosecute for the crime of “marriage.” It will be for the crime of improper filing of paperwork.

    Which, until the Patriot Act, was not a big deal. I think now maybe they can be waterboarded if they don’t talk.