http://www.courttv.com/trials/kantaras/020802_ctv.html For those unfamiliar with this, let me sum up: Michael Kantaras was a female who underwent gender reassignment surgery about 25 years ago. He married a woman named Linda, who was aware of his sex change. She was pregnant when they married, and Michael has raised her son as his own. In fact, he legally adopted Matthew. Michael and Linda had a daughter through artificial insemination that he also legally adopted. Their marriage is now ending, and both sides want custody of the children. However, Linda is now stating that the marriage should never have been legally recognized because Michael is a woman. Therefore, the legal adoptions should never have taken place, yet she still expects alimony and child support. Having been watching the testimony for the last week let me say that I have become pretty enthralled in this case. Maybe it's because I'm male, but I tend to not find Linda Kantaras entirely believable, nor do I think that she really has the best interests of the children in mind. She strikes me as being bitter at the fact that the marriage is over, and that Michael is now seeing her best friend. She consistently refers to Sherri (the friend and other woman) as a lesbian (because Michael is a woman), yet refers to herself as a heterosexual because she married a man. Not to say that there are not inconsistencies on Michael's side, too. But, all in all, I see no reason why someone who has had gender reassignment surgery should be denied custody. Peace.
Goofyfish I have been following the case slightly. But, Pretty much sums it upPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sara Bernhart (Grand Lady of the Stage) was interviewed near her death, in the twenties, and asked about the Victorian era's repressiveness. She replied, "If you wanted to swing naked from the chandallier it was perfectly acceptable, provided you did it behind closed doors and kept it off the streets, so you wouldn't scare the horses". So far as I see it, there are three issues here, A. "Michael's" faithlessness B. Linda's vindictiveness C. Sheri's intervention All three of these presumed adults (sexual proclivities aside) are not considering the primary issue: What is best for the children? Linda violated the priavcy of the relationship, "Michael" allowed her, Linda wants financial recompense for being betrayed. Not knowing the full story (and yes I read the cite) I couldn't say, I can say that LINDA is not the best "mother", and that her kids do need one. Mr. K
