Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
That's the British spelling of realize, direct from the the "Daily Mail" headline.
The interesting aspect is that this couple was lived as man and wife for 17 years of marriage. The issue before the courts initially, surprisingly, wasn't the misrepresentation. The court was hearing arguments regarding parental rights. The argument of gender ended up being the cause of the ruling against the female to male individual. He's identified as a transsexual, not transgendered. I assume this is because 29 years ago, when she underwent breast removal and hormone therapy, female to male reconstructive surgery was no readily available or prohibitively expensive.
How sad that the courts ignored all the other issues and focused on only one aspect of the relationship to avoid making any decision concerning the legality or illegality of same sex marriage. I'm wondering if the news organizations in the UK are reporting the salacious aspects of this story or the bigger issue of two people, same sex or not raising a child and having parental rights. I would like some of the UK members of this site enlighten me if the talk is more about the "home-made parts" used for sex, "living together for 17 years not realizing she was living with a woman", or bigger issues. It seems to me the underlying and biggest issue is the fact that the "unknowing" woman came from a "wealthy background". People from families with a "wealthy background" in the US look for any and all reasons not to share any of it when going through a divorce. This could be just a smokescreen, granted a better one than those fighting Anna Nichole Smith's inheritance.
quote:
A transsexual whose 17-year marriage to an heiress was nullified when the wife discovered her husband was a woman is not legally a "parent" of her 14-year-old daughter born from donor sperm, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
The female-to-male transsexual, referred to in court as Mr J, is now in law a man under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and can lawfully marry a woman if he wishes. But three appeal judges held that, because at the time of his "marriage" to Mrs C in 1977 he was still a woman, he had no parental rights.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=386300&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
|
Wife 'didn't realise husband was a woman' - 
Profile
RE: Wife 'didn't realise husband was a woman' - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread