TOPEKA, Kan., March 15 (UPI) -- The Kansas Supreme Court Friday rejected the legitimacy of the marriage of a transsexual woman to a millionaire, denying her claim to his $2.5 million estate.
The decision came in a suit filed by J'Noel Gardiner, a transsexual who "was neither male nor female" when a marriage license was issued to her and Marshall G. Gardiner, a wealthy widower with one son at the time he met and married J'Noel in 1998.
She was 40; he was 85.
Marshall Gardiner died without a will less than a year later and his son, Joe, claimed his father was unaware of J'Noel's gender history, rendering the marriage fraudulent and nullifying J'Noel's claim to the estate.
"The legislature has declared that the public policy of this state is to recognize only the traditional marriage between two parties who are of the opposite sex," the court wrote.
"The words 'sex,' 'marriage,' 'male' and 'female' in everyday understanding do not encompass transsexuals. The common, ordinary meaning of 'persons of the opposite sex' contemplates what is commonly understood to be a biological man and a biological woman. A post-operative male-to-female transsexual does not fit the common definition of a female."
The court said it could not ignore the legislature's intent "to recognize only the traditional marriage."
"If the legislature wishes to change public policy, it is free to do so; we are not," the court said. "To conclude that J'Noel is of the opposite sex of Marshall would require that we rewrite" the applicable statute.
The court went on to recognize the effort J'Noel has put into becoming a woman, including electrolysis, thermolysis, tracheal shave, hormone injections, extensive counseling and reassignment surgery.
"We are not blind to the stress and pain experienced by one who is born a male but perceives oneself as a female. We recognize that there are people who do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized category of male or female and to many, life becomes an ordeal. However, the validity of J'Noel's marriage to Marshall is a question of public policy to be addressed by the legislature and not by this court."
