Editing Re Kevin (section)

== Filing and arguments ==
{{references|section|date=October 2024}}
The issue in the case was the definition of the word "man" in terms of marriage. At the time of ''Re Kevin'' (2001), same sex marriage was still illegal in Australia. Kevin had been assigned female at birth, but had identified as male since childhood. As an adult, Kevin attempted to get married but the Attorney General appealed the marriage. He pointed to the earlier ruling of ''Corbett v Corbett (Otherwise Ashley) (1971)'', which ruled that sex is determined at birth by chromosomes, gonads and genitals. The judge in that ruling, Omrod J, decided that a transsexual male could not fulfill the role of a wife. The Attorney General attempted to use this ruling in the case of ''Re Kevin''. Kevin and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission brought forth evidence to counter this. They based their arguments on proving to the judge that Kevin was, in all aspects of his life, male. Kevin had, at the time of his marriage, had surgeries to remove both primary and secondary female sexual characteristics, as well as hormone therapy. After these surgeries, Kevin had applied to the Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages to have his sex legally changed. Additionally, for the trial, Kevin spoke to several psychologists to affirm that he identified as male. In court, the Judge heard from a total of four doctors and thirty nine other witnesses (twenty three of which were family or friends of Kevin, and sixteen of which were his colleagues). These witnesses spoke to the fact that Kevin was perceived as male in all aspects of his life. The case ultimately came down to the interpretation of the word "Man" in terms of marriage. Chisholm J had to decide whether to stand behind the finding of ''Corbett v Corbett'', or whether to accept that the modern interpretation of the word man includes transsexual and transgender individuals.