Gilding the Lilly

Humans have rights. The right to privacy, for example. The right, absent evidence that they would harm their children, to see those children. The right to marry in the first place. The right not to be made figures of public scorn and derision, to be called "it" and have their very humanity denied.

Others don't have those rights. The contrast can be seen clearly at http://clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/541159?wpid=1904



From USA Today OnLine
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/03/woman-goes-to-c.html

Jennifer Jack says she didn't realize that her ex-husband, Andrew Mireles, was a woman until after their marriage ended, according to KRIV-TV.

"It's actually a very bizarre set of facts. There's no way around that," attorney London O'Dowd tells Fox News Channel.

He says Jack was 16 when she met the 21-year-old Mireles.

"He, and with the help of his family, were able to convince her and her family and everyone around her them that she was a he," the lawyer says.

O'Dowd says his client learned the truth about her ex-husband, who has not undergone a sex-change operation, when she came across a yearbook photo of Phyllis Ann Mireles.

Mireles, however, claims that he told his wife the truth about 18 months into their relationship.

"We talked about it, discussed it and then we decided to stay together ... she decided to stay with me," Mireles tells the local Fox affiliate.

Either way, now that a judge has nullified their marriage, Jack wants the court to order Mireles to stay away from the two children they were raising

There's more (unconfirmed) detail from a (supposed) family member in the comments section (spelling as in the original)

I knew Andrew/Phyllis for 10 years I never once suspected he was a female. Andrew is a pathological liar and has carried this lie on for half his life. As far as the sex he claimed he was a hermaphidite (which was never shared with the family for privacy)and was embarassed for anyone to see him nude. He always wore a shirt and boxers and she was not allowed to touch him.
...
She did have one indiscretion during a brief seperation before they married and never thought the 1st child was anyone but Andrew's. The second child was conceived by insemination since she was unable to get pregnant. Well it would help if Andrew had all the male parts! The sperm was bought over the internet and the child was created in their home.
...
Andrew is a convicted felon for buglarizing a former employer and is on parole. His parole can be revolked now for falsifying State documents (Marriage License). Yes he served his time in a male detetion facility.
...
His family even stood at the wedding and let it go on knowing he was truly a girl. That is sick in its own way!

The complainant is an innocent flower not intimately (so to speak) familiar with male anatomy. Despite her getting pregnant before marriage, by a man not her husband. It was not having sex, it was an indiscretion. Right...

She didn't have to gild the lilly, Even if Andrew had had his Birth Certificate changed, as is possible in some states after "top surgery", even if he'd had the $100,000 "bottom surgery", the one with the 30% success rate (and so *not* required for gender recognition) , a Texas court would still have anulled the marriage. Even if the ex-wife was told all the details.

From the Court Decision in Kantaras vs Kantaras:

"Courts in Ohio, Kansas, Texas, and New York have addressed issues involving the marriage of a postoperative transsexual person, and in all cases the courts have invalidated or refused to allow the marriage on the grounds that it violated state statutes or public policy.
...
We agree with the Kansas, Ohio, and Texas courts in their understanding of the common meaning of male and female, as those terms are used statutorily, to refer to immutable traits determined at birth.
...
Our holding that the marriage is void ab initio does not take into consideration the best interests of the children involved in this case. While we recognize that the trial judge went to great lengths to determine the best interests of the children, the issue of deciding primary residential custody was dependent on the trial court's conclusion that the marriage was valid."

Source : http://www.jenburke.com/2005/02/kantaras-v-kantaras.html

Let's see... if the comment isn't bogus, this guy has served time in a male correctional facility, was married in front of his own family, and yet is still "Really a GIRL!!!!!!!!! (Shock Horror)". And HIS wife only just found out after the divorce, and two pregnancies. One of which she really, truly thought was due to him, honest.

Of course, under normal circumstances, a guy whose fiance was pregnant by another man might be less understanding when it came to actually getting married. But sometimes love really is blind. And you might expect a guy who was willing to bring up another man's child as his own might get some respect.

I'll leave aside the "buying sperm over the Internet" bit. I'm not buying it, anyway. So to speak.

So he did it twice. Now by his own admission, he didn't reveal his medical past until wayyy too late, but you can see why he might have thought a woman so evidently experienced at a young age when it came to sex might actually know that his apparatus wasn't the standard factory model on his wedding night. Assuming she waited that long, but that's a safe assumption, innocent lass as she is, honest as the day is long.

But divorce - and the usual child support - wasn't good enough for her, when things went sour. No, in order to really put the boot in, she needed to cut off his visitation rights (being unable to cut anything else off), and send him to jail for "falsifying state documents" or whatever.

But she's Human, so it's her right to do that. And the media and court system will gladly oblige. And leave two small children, children without a father, in her tender care.

I'm glad I live in Australia. Where all people are humans, not just some, and have rights.