If your ex-wife becomes a man should you still have to pay alimony?
 

Man: Ex' sex change should end alimony

CLEARWATER, Fla. - Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to the woman he divorced, not the man she became after a sex change, his lawyers argued Tuesday in an effort to end the payments. But the ex-wife's attorneys said the operation doesn't alter the agreement.

The lawyers and Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold agreed the case delves into relatively unchartered legal territory. They found only a 2004 Ohio case that addressed whether or not a transsexual could still collect alimony after a sex change.

"There is not a lot out there to help us," St. Arnold said.

Roach and his wife, Julia, divorced in 2004 after 18 years of marriage. The 48-year-old utility worker agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. Since then, Julia Roach, 55, had a sex change and legally changed her name to 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," Roach's attorney John McGuire said. "When she changed to man, I believe she terminated that alimony."

Silverwolf did not appear in court Tuesday and has declined to talk about the divorce. His lawyer, Gregory Nevins, said the language of the divorce decree is clear and firm ? Roach agreed to pay alimony until his ex-wife dies or remarries.

"Those two things haven't happened," said Nevins, a senior staff attorney with the national gay rights group Lambda Legal.

St. Arnold is considering the arguments. But lawyers on both sides agreed Tuesday that Roach will likely have to keep paying alimony to Silverwolf.

The judge poked holes in several of Roach's legal arguments and noted that appeals courts have declined to legally recognize a sex change in Florida when it comes to marriage. The appellate court "is telling us you are what you are when you are born," St. Arnold said.

In the Ohio case, an appeals court ruled in September 2004 that a Montgomery County man must continue to pay $750 a month in alimony to his transsexual ex-wife because her sex change wasn't reason enough to violate the agreement.

Roach's other attorney, John Smitten, said the case falls into a legal void.

"It's probably something that has to be addressed by the Legislature," Smitten said. "There is one other case in the entire United States. It really needs to be addressed either for or against the concept of eliminating alimony for that reason."

Roach, who has since remarried, said has been unable to convince state and federal lawmakers to tackle the issue. He said he will continue to fight.

"This is definitely wrong. I have a right to move forward with my life. I wish no harm and hardship to that person," Roach said of his ex-wife. "They can be the person they want to be, to find happiness and peace within themselves. I have the right to do the same. But I can't rest because I'm paying a lot of money every month."

The legal fight is the second transsexual rights showdown in Pinellas County in less than a week. On Friday, transsexual activists from around the country packed a City Commission meeting in neighboring Largo to oppose the firing of City Manager Steve Stanton after he announced he was a transsexual.

Despite the support, commissioners voted 5-2 to fire Stanton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/...change_alimony

"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," Roach's attorney John McGuire said. "When she changed to man, I believe she terminated that alimony."

This will be an interesting case.

The real question is "If your ex-wife becomes a man... does that make you gay?"

I read that story while ago, and I can't say that I came up with a clear answer in my own mind.

But my inclination is to say that the guy should not have to pay anymore alimony.

I would pay that bitch whatever she/he/it wants to stay away from me & my kids.

wow this is so weird

I don't understand the alimony concept at all.

The husband has to pay the ex-wife a salary in effect?

Why??? They're both adults, they should have to take care of themselves.

Probably a holdover from the days when females were expected to look after the kids and the house, rather than get a job.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

I like how she, err, he, used the alimony money for the operation.

Pretty simple solution: Remove marriage from the legal system, and remove all of this confusion and distraction from more important issues...

If she was able to have a full career on her own I agree. If she was expected not to work so that he could then that is a different matter.

I think the assumption that at the time he was having sex with the person there was a vagina involved.

If its not legal for a man to marry another man and those marriages are not recognized then anything resulting from said marriage should not be leagally recognized either...

But he didn't marry another man he married what was at the time a female si that does not apply and there's the flaw...

However if you marry janedow #1 your not married to jane or jon dow #2 so the leagalities change and you could argue that point regardless of gender...

By stating "I married mis Jane Dow not Mr. Jon Dow"

If mis Jane Dow had her name changed than leagally mis Jane Dow no longer exists and the same leagallities would apply as if mis Jane Dow where considerred leagally desseased and or remarried with a diferrent name

If she is truely wants to become a man she should not accept the money!

NO WAY he should have to pay. You want to be a man ... BE a @#!$%! MAN! Make your own way and don't expect to sponge off someone else.

(and the same goes for K-Fed)

yeah because men have never taken money from a partner

Too bad he can't argue that she knew this before and thus entered the marriage under false pretenses.

That's what I was thinking too :1orglaugh

wow!

how many civil rights should we strilp away from men and women?

Regardless of who he is now, he was a she, and she put up with him enough to get granted alimony from a marriage.

Just because the rules have changed, doesn't mean the game is different.

R

Why should a man have to pay alimony in this day and age is beyond me. Why is it womens rights only are good for what's good for a women, yet if it's not beneficial to the women then it's ok to ignore womens right.

I say if you want to be treated equal then that means you have to take the good with the bad. So child support I can understand but alimony in most cases is total BS. Specially if the guy is a working man and not rich.

I just don't get why men get married these days, there is almost nothing in it for us.

What about the mans civil rights to not have to bust his ass to make the extra $1200 a month to pay to someone else for the rest of his life.

haha funny one :1orglaugh

im glad i was a texas resident when i got divorced... no alimony in texas, woohoo!

Well said:thumbsup

with life comes consequences

I agree 100%....

Most Women want equal rights as long as it benefits them which really contradicts the egual rights issue...

either women want equality or they dont... they can't or shouldn't have it both ways even though thats what they'd prefer

Example: If you want equal rights than equality would mean if women dont have to pay men then men shouldn't have to pay women...

Now thats fairness and equality...

Exactly, but if women are equal then shouldn't they be held to the same consequences that men are held to???...

I don't see women paying any alimony in any type of situation what so ever

well at least if the husband would kick the heshe's ass, it wouldnt be battery on a female.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

If she can afford an operation like that, then, She really doesn't need the money.

It has happened..at least in the UK.

It all depends on how equal she was in the marriage. There are a lot of women that gave up their careers and education and did a lot to support their partner's career advancement and raise the kids and then suddenly he is gone and leaves them hanging. Not saying in this case and I generally agree with you and it is the reason I would never let a man (or anybody) pay my way in anything.

You have a point with regards to women leavng their jobs / careers to serve as house hold care takers... their positions are not any less important than the partners position (both parts are equally important)...

But whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

If the shoe where on the other foot no one would even consider having the woman pay alimony and thats not equality / fairness

As far as it happening in the UK, well, I dont know about that, I'm basing my oppinions on US laws... (which is where I'm from,)

After all, lets keep it real, whether any female wants to admit it or not. off the record / unofficially thats how it is here...

and as I said... You have a point with regards to women leavng their jobs / careers to serve as house hold care takers... their positions are not any less important than the partners position (both parts are equally important)...

But if thats the case then there are men who leave their jobs and take care the kids & stuff while the woman furthers her career...

where are their alimony payments???

no...you shouldn't have to pay alimony...once she's a man, it's palimony....and yes, palimony is a real term

that'd be an interesting case...

:1orglaugh oh shit that is funny.

I agree - very weird

Anyone else have any further opinions on the subject?...
I'm curious