Same-sex marriage ban and a sex change muddles a divorce

Thomas Beatie (R), Nancy Beatie and daughter Susan Juliette pictured during the RTL 2008 review show on December 07, 2008, in Cologne, Germany. / Getty Images

PHOENIXAn Arizona man who garnered national media attention for giving birth to three children after having a sex-change operation has hit a snag in his divorce proceedings that could prevent him from having his marriage legally dissolved.

A judge is questioning whether the state's same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending Thomas and Nancy Beatie's union — or even recognizing its validity. Thomas Beatie was born a woman and underwent a sex change but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.

Thomas and Nancy Beatie are eager to end their nine-year marriage, but their divorce plans stalled when Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach said in late June that he was unable to find any legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth.

"Are we dealing with a same-sex marriage?" Gerlach asked. He noted Arizona has banned such marriages and refuses to accept those performed in other states. The judge added no court here is allowed to declare same-sex unions valid.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said courts have declared marriages involving a transgender person invalid in a handful of cases across the country. But he said those cases had different factual and legal issues than those in the Beatie case.

Minter, an expert in family law involving gay, lesbian and transgender people, said he could recall only one case in which a marriage involving a transgender person who gave birth went through the courts. He said that union was dissolved in California about a decade ago without disputes about whether the marriage was valid.

"What you have is a man and woman who are married, and their relationship is ending," said Minter, who isn't involved in the Beatie case. "And it's no different, fundamentally, from other people in that circumstance."

Jim Campbell, an attorney for a conservative Christian legal organization that isn't involved in the Beatie case, said in an email that the failure of the courts to protect traditional marriage has led to chaos and that children are being led into "increasingly bizarre situations."

"Sadly, the deep confusion created by these two women, and the biological father who helped conceive the children, is just a symptom of much greater societal problems," said Campbell, of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Thomas Beatie, known as "The Pregnant Man," was born Tracy Lehuanani Lagondino in Oahu, Hawaii. He began testosterone treatments in 1997 and underwent double mastectomy and chest reconstruction surgery in 2002. He changed his Hawaii driver's license to say he was a man and had a Hawaiian court approve his name change to Thomas.

Thomas Beatie married his partner Nancy in early 2003 in Honolulu and became pregnant because Nancy was unable to have children. Thomas Beatie conceived with donated sperm and gave birth to children who are now 4, 3 and 2 years old. The couple eventually moved to Arizona.

Beatie has garnered a range of media attention, making the rounds on talk shows such as Larry King and Oprah Winfrey and winning a spot on Barbara Walters' list of "10 Most Fascinating People" in 2008, alongside President Barack Obama, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and swimmer Michael Phelps. He also published a book, "Labor Of Love: The Story Of One Man's Extraordinary Pregnancy," whose cover displayed an image of a shirtless Thomas sporting facial hair and holding a hand over his bare pregnant belly.

Beatie, through one of his attorneys, declined an interview request.

The Beatie divorce case turns on the question of whether a judge has jurisdiction to grant a divorce in a marriage involving a transgender person. A Jan. 31 trial is scheduled, and the judge is expected to rule in early February.

If the judge decides he has no jurisdiction, Thomas is expected to appeal, and attorneys on both sides said the temporary agreement on parenting time likely would be made permanent. They might have to go to civil court to divide their property.

While the judge is mulling whether to let the couple divorce, Thomas and Nancy agree they should end the marriage.

"If you took away the transgender part of it, it's a garden-variety divorce case," said David Higgins, Nancy's attorney.

David Michael Cantor, one of Thomas Beatie's attorneys, said it would be more financially favorable for his client if the marriage weren't recognized by the courts, because Thomas could have to pay Nancy alimony. But Cantor said Thomas wants the divorce as an official recognition that their union was legitimate. "He loses money, but he wants to be told it's valid," Cantor said.

[dylanterreri2]

letter to the editors,
letter to the sex therapists,
letter to the republicans (or any politician who cares about the emotional state of the nation):

first there was an awareness of therapy to turn smokers into non-smokers, but i didn't speak up because i was not a smoker. then there was acceptance of therapy to turn alcoholics into non-alcoholics, but i didn't speak up because i was not an alcoholic. now there is an awareness (if not acceptance) of therapy for turning crooked men straight. well, being a crooked man who isn't straight with himself as a man and who therefore searches for another man to be the only man in his life (and the only "real man" in his bed) - i am a man who will speak up.

there are dictatorial bigots who want to BAN this "conversion" or "reparative" therapy, citing "proof" that such a therapy has induced depression and suicide on gay people who chose to receive this therapy. i would like to bring up the fact that the very thought of being gay with no means of escape has induced depression and suicide on countless of gay people who didn't choose to receive this therapy. i would also like to compare the cigarette smoker who doesn't want to be, the alcoholic who doesn't want to be, and the homosexual who doesn't want to be, with the soon-to-be mother who doesn't want to be. which is worse, killing an emotional desire or killing a physical life? why is killing life legal, while killing a sexual attraction is nearly illegal? why are people so concerned with forcing those with a gay state-of-mind to never act on a desire to change their minds? i know that i'm not the only gay "man" who would like to regard himself as a legitimate man (without any implied quotation marks being used to refer to the fact that most any man who is sexually attracted to "real men" isn't attracted to himself).

i'm sure that whichever dictatorial bigot who supports a ban of the therapy which makes a crooked person straight has no problem with no ban of the surgery which makes a crooked person's gender "reassigned".. let's see...therapy to overcome smoking is not considered self-denial, therapy to overcome drinking is not seen as self-denial, therapy and drugs and hormones to overcome the effects of "gender-reassignment surgery" is not a mark of self-denial (even though a denial of self is what brings about the desire for a self-changing, sex-change surgery)...but overcoming homosexuality is more self-denying than chastity bono is. hmn...it's like there is some kind of agenda here.

there is nothing deeming homosexuality as necessary. the only good that homosexuality is directly responsible for is the website known as anti-gay.com, which is chock full of gay-bashing logic (not unlike this letter). there is nothing special about homosexuality that presents a reason to keep gay people gay - homosexuality does not produce life , the only thing it has directly produced is an influx of disease. there is no reason to ban the therapy that turns crooked people straight, doing so would rob countless numbers of people of their right to self-esteem...because what kind of self-esteem could possibly exist in the life of a man who thinks of himself as enough of a masculivoid to seek out the man of his dreams in someone else?

just fyi: "masculivoid" is another word for a masculine slight or a masculine insufficiency.

with this letter, i hereby call on society to wake up and to realize that homosexuality is for self-discontent losers who preach self-love as if "self" referred to their emotional state of mind which can easily be changed by opinions and knowledge, rather than their physical state of gender which cannot be changed by anything. gender-reassignment surgery is mere augmentation, much like a boob-job, because "chaz" bono's ***** cannot fertilize an egg. "chaz" bono is not a real man, physically or emotionally, and that is the justifiable truth.

"chaz" bono is as prefabricated as my house.

thank you,
dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays

[Jonseen]

This particular couple has bent traditions and conventions every which way. I have wondered if it's more about the publicity?

[silvereagle2718]

Well. People go to Vegas to get married, or so the story goes. Why not go to California to get divorced?

Not a fan of divorce, gays, or gay marriage.

As for all states recognizing acts of all other states. I don't understand law, but there is only one federal government. Making each state recognize the laws of the others gives us at least 51.

[RachealMcG]

"AttyFAM replies:
Arizona's law attempting to withdraw jurisdiction cannot be sustained as it fails to recognize the legitimacy of the marriage from Hawaii."

Why 'fails to recognize the legitimacy'?
Was Same Sex marriage legal in Hawaii when the Beatties married?
If not then the marriage wasnt legitimate in the first place.
If Thomas filled out the documents claiming to be a man then clearly falsified the documents as he was clearly a woman who gave birth.
No man has the ability to carry and bare a child.

[RachealMcG]

I am a sexchange female and pro Same Sex Marriage.
Thomas Beattie was a female when he/she gave birth. Its that simple.
It was a stunt by Ophrah at the expense of Transsexuals.
If Hawaii didnt have same sex marriages when the 'Beaties' were 'married' then their was no marriage. If they did, then it was a Same Sex Marriage and divorce is required.

Yes some Transmen may still have not gone all the way but Beattie hadnt had a hyesterectomy and so I cannot accept she was male nor a Transman.
There is no divorce needed and it is not a same sex marriage as the original marriage was a fraud.

If it was a Same Sex marriage, go back through the Hawaian Court for the Divorce.

[AttyFAM]

The couple is not domiciled in Hawaii any more, so Hawaii does not have jurisdiction any more. Basic civil procedure.

What does matter is the U. S. Constitution, which requires that each and every state give Full Faith and Credit to the acts of any other state. Arizona's law attempting to withdraw jurisdiction cannot be sustained as it fails to recognize the legitimacy of the marriage from Hawaii.

[hypnotoad72]

That first paragraph skimps on details.

Especially as people who undergo the actual procedures cannot bear children. She was given hormone treatments, got inseminated, and continued to take hormone treatments.

She was never, on a technical level, a male. Not until after any operation that would make her a male with functional parts. All she did was use half-truths to move forward her own agenda.

Personally, a marriage should be life-long. Which was kinda the point of marriage in the first place. Why fight for something you're not going to use? Altruism, really? Then why get a divorce, since remaining married to collect the tax breaks and other entitlements helps your partner as much as anyone else.

All this is selfishness on the Beaties' part.

I would say, as was suggested below, to outlaw divorce. Just allowing marriage equity isn't enough, and divorce renders the concept of marriage pointless.

Or, perhaps, not outlaw divorce, but make it harder to obtain.

[DanBrown55]

We have long known that gender is more complicated than physiology alone, emotions alone, psychology alone, appearance alone, or assigned cultural roles. However the law may choose to classify people, or however people choose to classify themselves, there are more than two clear-cut genders, just as there are more than yellow and red in that end of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are many shades of orange out there; don't you think there are also many unique combinations of traits between all male and all female? Even at the extremes, do not the genders share a great deal in common? Thomas, who may fall between extreme, rigid legal definitions of gender, is not at fault here, the law is.

[hypnotoad72]

The laws as pertinent to one state.

People could have guessed these issues a long time ago. It's not that difficult to do. (not as much Beatie but the more basic situation of which states recognize what and which allow divorce, etc... as I said below, with a few more details, about how much more this will ultimately cost taxpayers... it wouldn't surprise me if a taxpayer-funded attorney got involved, if either Beatie can't afford it. Their personal lives are not my business, but the lack of continuity between laws between states does involve us all... as is the basic law of marriage, which has been made a mockery of by so many heterosexuals in the first place (including one celeb's 55 hour marriage...))

[AttyFAM]

The couple was married in Hawaii under Hawaiian law in 2003. If the State of Arizona applies its law to refuse to recognize the marriage, then it violates the U. S. Constitution which requires that each state give full faith and credit to the laws and acts of the other states.

It does not matter a whit whether you argue over the gender of Thomas. That is irrelevant and should not concern you. It seems that only Caeric and Vissionquest understand the situation. The rest of you are much too provincial and bigoted.

[AttyFAM]

And Transatlantique and Radgal, whose comments I did not see when I wrote the foregoing.

[Ulgnud]

All the States have laws unique to their own state. Arizona doesn't recognize the marriage. Either go to a state that recognizes it or simply accept the fact that they are not married in Arizona, or any other state that does not recognize it. Name calling might make some feel good, but won't change the facts. These two are simply shacked up where they currently live.

[Transatlantique]

I support gay marriage, and those who choose to change their physical sex shapes. However, if a man give birth to a child, that is not entirely a man. One cannot have physical parts of a woman and be a man. Now, if that person says "I am a man on the inside," that is really an identity issue that would require augmentation of the parts to match the inner self if that one chose. Obviously, this "man" didn't choose to change everything and could still give birth as a physical woman.

The headlines should not read that a "man gave birth," but that a partially transgendered female to male gave birth with "his" lady bits. That is far more honest than the sensational headline that is sure to grab the potential open minded reader, and inflame the redneck hick who doesn't understand the complicated nature of human sexuality and the illusion that is gender identity.

[hypnotoad72]

Until modern medicine can swap outies for innies (or vice-versa) and make them 100% functional, she was always a she and using spin and false truths to say "he was pregnant". The media fell for it right enough at the time, hyping up an untrue condition.

But Thomas, and all the chemicals she ingested, make for interesting guinea pigs. I mean the children, and how they developed in-utero, since they did not develop in-scrotal...

I support gay marriage and gender replacement operations, but Thomas was never sincere to the media when hawking this several-year epic for his/her personal gain. That's not with giving respect to.

[RadGal]

Two simple remedies:

1. Outlaw divorce.

OR

2. Recognize marriage equality nationwide.

It would seem the latter would be much easier.

[hypnotoad72]

Replace "or" with "and" and we've got a winner.

The trouble is, heterosexuals say the vows, which are not exactly ambiguous (the life-long nature of their union), have abused marriage and the tax-related entitlements they provide, long before GLBT people got such rights. Just allowing marriage equality nationwide (e.g. federal law as opposed to the spaghetti that the individual states have fostered) isn't enough... if people really want marriage, they should live by it and not be so cowardly as to ditch their partnerships (straight or GLBT, "partnership" covers all).