I watched with some degree of discomfort and much fascination on one of those 60 Minutes clone shows the story of a 47-year-old man, twice married, who always knew he was a woman and had "sexual reassignment" surgery, which I have a hard time comprehending. I think that Tom Wyatt of the Rockhampton City Council said it better than most when he pointed out that "...when you talk about taking those testes off ..., they not only destroy the testes, they destroy the substructure as well ..."
So, here we have a man who is now a ... well, umm, like ... not a man. He is, living with his her a friend named Sandy, who also was a man and is now like ... umm, not a man anymore. And I don't know like if they are umm, like lesbians real close friends or not because in the show he she didn't say, that was not mentioned by anybody.
As usual, I got no outline for this little blog post, like a friend said I should have ... organized like, I guess.
So, the point is, where does this guy individual fit into the scheme of things if this marriage amendment gets passed by two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states?
The amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Can he someone who has had this surgery get married? And to whom?
Please discuss amongst yourselves.
And please stop by Blog Madness 2003 where Jackson, who was up in the early morning hours this morning trying to talk a drug addict through a difficult time of withdrawal, is in the finals of the winners bracket of the Love Region. Vote for his entry, if you think it merits a vote.
Posted by Bill at February 26, 2004 10:36 AMI've always admired people who have the courage to have these operations. But I've never been able to sort out how their relationships 'work' afterwards
Posted by: Anji at February 26, 2004 12:03 PMVoted. And about your scenario--I just don't know. I just don't know.
Posted by: TW at February 26, 2004 03:25 PMooh, you know ... i think you just brought up a good point. they better throw in some other clauses in that amendment. for instance, they better redefine "man" as somebody born with only one X and one Y chromosome. and redefine "woman" as somebody born with only two "X" chromosomes. that way they can exclude ALL the people they don't like. woohoo!
Posted by: tj at February 26, 2004 08:35 PMOK, I've really been thinking hard about this scenario and the only solution would be for this person to marry him/herself. That'd work, wouldn't it? Or not.
Posted by: Philip at February 27, 2004 12:14 AMBrilliant post Bill. It has amazed me, a mere mortal from a 3rd world country, to read what is going on over there. I love the present governments priorities. "Lets get the gays because all the controversy will put out of the minds of our citizens, the real important issues which we have NOT given focus to especially in an election year. Like education, health care, the aged, abused woman, the homeless, the jobless". What is up with Bush? Our Equality bill in our Constitution protects gays and that is how it should be. Everyone has a right to choose how to live their lives as long as it brings no harm to anyone else.
Posted by: Michelle at February 27, 2004 05:49 AMI love that I get linked in the post that refers to testes more than once.
As to your question...I think they should marry their first cousin.
No reason.
Posted by: Kathy Howe at February 27, 2004 12:19 PM