Reply #45: I have to disagree with your assertion that the terms of the marriage are irrelevant .

[Laurier]

The court's decision about alimony is based upon the terms of the marriage, thus those terms are very relevant. I have to disagree with your assertion that the terms of the marriage are irrelevant to the terms of the dissolution of the marriage. And I am assuming that the marriage was based upon the parties being opposite genders in this case, since that seems to be the basis of this thread and since it appears that there was no expectation to the contrary in this case, and since in the (in my view) unenlightened state in which they were married, they could not have married as a same sex couple in any event. Is there really an issue here about the intent of the parties insofar as it relates to the gender of the person they were marrying at the time? I don't see that in this thread, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no written contract with regards to the marriage as far as I can tell from the OP, so it is not about interpreting the terms of a contract, as you suggest. Rather, it is about a court trying to interpret to the best of its ability the intent of the parties and the obigations of the parties.

You seem to be introducing a straw man here by raising the issue of a parent having a sex change and how that impacts upon a spouse being required to pay child support. I did not see anything in the OP about children or child support being an issue, but supporting one's children is a seperate issue from supporting one's previous spouse, as I'm sure you know.

You said:

"Would you say that a divorced father who has a sex change is somehow entitled to stop his child support? Same thing, y'know."

No, it is not the same thing at all. And no, I would not say that having a sex change absolves anyone of their obligations to their children. But that is not the issue here.