In Re the Estate of Gardiner
2002 Kan. LEXIS 117, 42 P.3d 120, 273 Kan. 191 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of Kansas's marriage statute, which requires parties to be of the 'opposite sex,' a person's sex is determined by their biological characteristics at birth. A post-operative transsexual individual retains their birth-assigned sex for marriage purposes, rendering a marriage to a person of the same birth-assigned sex void.
Facts:
- J’Noel Gardiner was born with male genitalia, as indicated on her original birth certificate.
- In the early 1990s, J'Noel underwent a series of medical procedures, including electrolysis, hormone therapy, a tracheal shave, and removal of her testicles, as part of her gender transition.
- In August 1994, J'Noel underwent sex reassignment surgery, resulting in the creation of a functional vagina; her doctor subsequently opined she should be considered an 'anatomical female.'
- Following the surgery, a Wisconsin court ordered the issuance of a new birth certificate for J'Noel, which listed her sex as female.
- J'Noel met Marshall Gardiner in May 1998 and disclosed her history as a male to him in July 1998.
- J'Noel and Marshall Gardiner were married in Kansas on September 25, 1998.
- Marshall Gardiner died intestate (without a will) in August 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- After Marshall Gardiner's death, his son, Joseph Gardiner (Joe), filed a petition for letters of administration in a Kansas district court (probate proceeding).
- J'Noel Gardiner filed an objection, seeking to be appointed administrator as the surviving spouse.
- Joe amended his petition, alleging he was the sole heir because the marriage was void since J'Noel was born male.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Joe, ruling the marriage was void under Kansas law.
- J'Noel Gardiner (appellant) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, remanding the case for a factual determination of J'Noel's sex at the time of marriage using a multi-factor test.
- Joe Gardiner (petitioner) petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Kansas law (K.S.A. 23-101), which requires a marriage to be between two parties of the 'opposite sex,' is a marriage between a man and a post-operative male-to-female transsexual valid?
Opinions:
Majority - Allegrucci, J.
No. A marriage between a man and a post-operative male-to-female transsexual is not valid under Kansas law because the parties are not of the 'opposite sex.' The court determines that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words 'sex,' 'male,' and 'female' in the statute refers to biological sex as determined at birth. The court relies on dictionary definitions that define sex based on reproductive capabilities, noting that a post-operative transsexual like J'Noel lacks female reproductive organs such as a womb, cervix, or ovaries, and retains her male chromosomes. The legislative history of the statute indicates an intent to affirm the 'traditional view of marriage' between a biological man and a biological woman. The court reasons that the legislature's silence on the issue of transsexuals implies they are not included within the statute's scope. Concluding that this is a matter of public policy for the legislature, not the courts, to decide, the court refuses to 'rewrite' the statute to recognize the marriage as valid.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a rigid, biological-at-birth standard for determining a person's sex for marriage purposes in Kansas, explicitly rejecting more modern, multi-factor approaches that consider psychological gender identity and post-operative anatomy. The ruling entrenches a 'traditional' definition of marriage and reflects a judicial philosophy of strict statutory interpretation and deference to the legislature on contentious public policy issues. This precedent effectively barred transsexual individuals from marrying in accordance with their gender identity in Kansas, placing the impetus for any change squarely on the legislative branch.
