Hat tip to Mason Conservative both for this story, and a visceral example of the quandary that anti-equality folks find themselves in when they try to define marriage according to the gender of the participants. “I don’t even know what to think,” says the author. I’ll bet he doesn’t.
Apparently, Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to his former spouse “until she dies or remarries.” His former spouse did neither of those things, electing instead to undergo gender transition. One is tempted to wonder about the role that his gender identity played in the divorce and that whole “until death do you part” thing, but I suppose that would be a digression.
At any rate, Mr. Roach is arguing that the divorce agreement should be terminated because he believes it would now be illegal for him to be married to his former spouse, Julio Roberto Silverwolf. “It’s illegal for a man to marry a man and it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man,” said John McGuire, one of Roach’s attorneys.
The Circuit Court judge doesn’t see it that way, citing earlier precedents in which Florida has refused to recognize a legal gender change for the purpose of marriage. The appellate court “is telling us you are what you are when you are born,” said the judge.
Just to be perfectly clear, this is what the court is saying: Were Mr. Roach and Mr. Silverwolf to meet today, fall in love, and apply for a Florida marriage license, they would be granted one, and could live happily ever after. How fabulous is that? Despite the author’s presentation of this article as “a moment of levity,” I have a feeling that those earnestly engaged in what they regard as a “culture war” don’t find this funny at all.