In re Estate of Gardiner

Last updated

In re Estate of Gardiner
Court Supreme Court of Kansas
Full case name In the Matter of the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner, Deceased
DecidedMarch 15, 2002 (2002-03-15)
Citations42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002); 273 Kan. 191 (2002); 2002 Kan. LEXIS 117
Holding
"A post-operative male-to-female transsexual is not a woman within the meaning of the statutes and cannot validly marry another man." [1]
Court membership
Chief judge Kay McFarland
Associate judgesRobert E. Davis, Donald L. Allegrucci, Bob Abbott, Frederick N. Six, Tyler C. Lockett, Edward Larson, Timothy Brazil (assigned to participate)
Case opinions
Decision byDonald L. Allegrucci
Robert E. Davis took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002), is a case in which the Kansas Supreme Court voided the marriage of a man and a trans woman, holding that the latter was considered male under Kansas law, and thus the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage precluded the legal validity of the marriage. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The case concerned the marriage of J'Noel Ball, a finance professor at Park College, and Marshall G. Gardiner, a donor to Park College who had previously twice served in the Kansas House of Representatives. [5] [6] The marriage took place in Oskaloosa, Jefferson County, Kansas in September 1998 when Ball was 40 and Gardiner was 85. J'Noel Ball took her husband's surname. Marshall Gardiner died in August of the following year; he left a $2.5 million estate but no will.

Joe Gardiner challenged the disposition of his father's estate, arguing that J'Noel was legally male and therefore that his father's marriage to her was invalid. In legal documents, he described J'Noel as having a mental disorder. In January 2002, he told a New York Times reporter that J'Noel's gender was an "illusion" and contrary to the "laws of God." [7]

The district court agreed with the son, ruling that J'Noel was male. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, ruling that the marriage was valid in part because J'Noel had a functional vagina and the marriage had been sexually consummated, but in March 2001 the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court in part and affirmed the district court. [8] [9] [10] The Kansas Supreme Court wrote that "a male-to-female post-operative transsexual does not fit the definition of a female." The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on October 7, 2002. [11]

Criticism

The ruling has also been described as "de-sex"ing transgender people, based on the court statement that the "words 'sex,' 'marriage,' 'male,' and 'female' in everyday understanding do not encompass transsexuals." [12]

Because J'Noel was born in Wisconsin, and the laws of that state allowed her to change the sex on her birth certificate, the ruling was criticized for violating the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. [13]

On February 18, 2003, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a transgender woman may be recognized as a woman if she provides some type of medical evidence of a "permanent and irreversible change." The ruling was in favor of Janet Heilig. [14]

In 2004, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a transgender man had no child custody claim in his divorce because he was not a man and therefore his marriage to a woman was invalid. The ruling was against Michael Kantaras.

Related Research Articles

The legal status of transgender people varies greatly around the world. Some countries have enacted laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals, but others have criminalized their gender identity or expression. In many cases, transgender individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas of life.

Re Kevin – Validity of Marriage of a Transsexual, also known simply as Re Kevin, was a 2001 Australian court case brought before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia regarding the possibility of transsexual people to marry according to their new gender. The court granted the applicant this right.

Hindu views of homosexuality and LGBTQ issues more generally are diverse, and different Hindu groups have distinct views.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Venezuela</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Venezuela face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Both male and female types of same-sex sexual activity are legal in Venezuela, but same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex married couples. Also, same-sex marriage and de facto unions are constitutionally banned since 1999.

Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) is a 1970 family law divorce case heard between November and December 1969 by the High Court of England and Wales in which Arthur Corbett sought annulment of his marriage to April Ashley. Corbett (the husband) had known at the time of the wedding that Ashley (the wife) had been registered male at birth and had undertaken sex-reassignment surgery. However, after the relationship had broken down, Corbett sought to end the marriage, his legal ground for doing so being that the marriage had been invalid, as Ashley was of the male sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lydia Foy</span> Irish transgender activist

Lydia Annice Foy is an Irish trans woman notable for leading legal challenges regarding gender recognition in Ireland. In 1992, Foy had sex reassignment surgery, and began a 20-year battle to have her birth certificate reflect her gender identity. In 2007, the Irish High Court ruled that the relevant portions of the law of the Republic of Ireland were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but by February 2013 the law had not been changed and she began new legal proceedings to enforce the 2007 decision. As of 15 July 2015, Ireland has passed the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223 (1999), is a 1999 lawsuit that voided a marriage where one of the individuals was a transgender woman, Christie Lee Littleton. The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas ruled that, for purposes of Texas law, Littleton is male, and that her marriage to a man was therefore invalid. Texas law did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time of the ruling.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Missouri</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Missouri face some legal challenges not experienced by other residents throughout the state, excluding St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Missouri, in accordance with 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. In 2006, Missouri codified the legality of same-sex sexual activity into its statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Alaska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Alaska have evolved significantly over the years. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBTQ people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.

The state of Texas, located in the south in the United States, contains a large community of LGBTQ+ citizens. More specifically, the city Austin, Texas has the third largest population of LGBTQ+ people based on the size of the city. Austin, Texas, and Texas in general, is home to several icons of the LGBTQ+ community such as Karamo Brown, co-founder of the LGBTQ+ group "Queer Eye" and Demi Lovato, a queer artist and activist. There is history of heavy violence against the LGBTQ+ community within Texas such as riots, as well as liberation and parades celebrating those within the community.

The United States policy regarding same-sex immigration denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Puerto Rico since July 13, 2015, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. On June 26, 2015, the court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Same-sex couples could begin applying for marriage licenses on July 13, and the first marriages occurred on July 17, 2015.

Transgender rights in Australia have legal protection under federal and state/territory laws, but the requirements for gender recognition vary depending on the jurisdiction. For example, birth certificates, recognised details certificates, and driver licences are regulated by the states and territories, while Medicare and passports are matters for the Commonwealth.

The legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States begins in the 1960s. Such legislation covers federal, state, municipal, and local levels, as well as military justice. It reflects broader societal attitudes which have shifted significantly over time and have impacted legislative and judicial outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of LGBT history in the United States</span>

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ "85030 -- In re Estate of Gardiner". Kansas Supreme Court. March 15, 2002. Archived from the original on September 23, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  2. ↑ Strasser, Mark (2003). "Harvesting the Fruits of Gardiner: On Marriage, Public Policy, and Fundamental Interests". George Washington Law Review. 71: 179. SSRN   439524.
  3. ↑ Oliphant, Robert E.; Steegh, Nancy Ver (March 7, 2007). Examples & Explanations: Family Law, 2nd Ed. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 45–. ISBN   9780735562899 . Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  4. ↑ Link, David (March 22, 2002). "Same-sex marriage, with a twist". Salon . Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  5. ↑ Spurgeon, Devon (July 7, 2000). "Double Bind: Why a Woman in Missouri Is a Man in Kansas, and Why It Matters". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  6. ↑ "J'Noel Gardiner (1958 - ) finance professor". A Gender Variance Who's Who. June 3, 2011. Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  7. ↑ Wilgoren, Jodi (January 13, 2002). "Suit Over Estate Claims a Widow Is Not a Woman". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  8. ↑ Lamoy, Annie; Stacy Downs (March 15, 2002). "Kansas Supreme Court rules against transsexual (subscription required)". Knight Ridder / Tribune News Service. Archived from the original on March 29, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  9. ↑ Norgren, Jill (July 30, 2006). Serena Nanda (ed.). American Cultural Pluralism And Law. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 200–. ISBN   9780275986995 . Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  10. ↑ Myers, Gordon Brown, Scott; Myers, Scott (June 16, 2008). Administration of Wills, Trusts, and Estate. Cengage Learning. pp. 85–. ISBN   9781428321762 . Retrieved November 13, 2012.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ Gardiner v. Gardiner, 537 U.S. 825 (2002).
  12. ↑ Currah, Paisley; Juang, Richard M.; Minter, Shannon Price (2006). Transgender Rights. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 37–. ISBN   9780816643127 . Retrieved November 13, 2012.
  13. ↑ Gebhardt, Shawn (2009). "Full Faith and Credit for Status Records: A Reconsideration of Gardiner". California Law Review. 97: 1419–.
  14. ↑ "GPAC Applauds MD Ruling Upholding Sex Change, Stage Set for Conflict with Recent TX, KS Decisions". Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GPAC) press release. February 18, 2003.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.