The Greatest Lie Part 11

I concluded "So the Court held the marriage was invalid and awarded the entire estate to Joe, and nothing to J'Noel."

Epstein asked " Ms. Rivers, do you see anything wrong in the reasoning of the Kansas Supreme Court?"

"It's a terrible decision by a weak and lazy judges, or maybe they are pretending to be ignorant and are really biased. Why should they assume that the Kansas legislature had in mind an outdated dictionary definition of sex, male and female? Given the attention paid to transsexuals in the media, why not assume that the Kansas Legislature was aware of transsexuals and intended that the courts categorize them based on gender identity rather than genes, particularly where Wisconsin had officially recognized the sex change? These judges were relying on their own limitations and preconceptions, where they admitted they had no evidence of legislative intent. I think it's a terrible decision."

Peter Swenson, a Young Republican type, replied hotly "Aren't you doing just what you are accusing the court of? Where there is no contrary intent, shouldn't we let the plain meaning of the statute speak for itself. Last time I looked, this was still a republic, where elected legislators make the laws, not the judges."

Epstein took my part, and responded "So what they are saying is that the Kansas legislature must have ignored all of the science and publicity about transsexuals in defining gender. Of course they knew about transsexuals. The statue is an abomination, but it was only aimed at prohibiting gay marriage. Why interpret such a statute broadly? I think Rivers has a point. Should one infer a deprivation of rights based on silence?"

Alec Olsen, another Heritage Foundation type, interjected "Why should we assume Kansas legislators were ill informed. Why not assume the obvious, that they were relying on common understandings of these terms. After all, they were enacting the "Preservation of Marriage Act", not the "Protection of Transvestites Act. "