Here is a video of an interview with the Widow.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7563539&syndicate=syndicate§ion&cmp=FB-news-7563539Brief Summary: She says she had a name change in 1996, and that she met her late husband in 2007. She says they married in 2008, and that they presented all the legal papers required by law to obtain the license. She says she had an operation 2 months after the marriage. She also said she had a court ordered gender change and got a new birth certificate, but it's not clear if that happened before the marriage or after the subsequent operation. She says she had some male genitalia that were developed about like that of a two year old, and that she has neither male nor female reproductive organs. It is not entirely clear whether the lack of male reproductive organs is due to the operation, but she refers to her condition as a "birth defect" repeatedly through the interview.
Connecting the dots based on some info in another video (posted by Zythyra directly above), in which an attorney speaks of the husband's shock and dismay over being confronted with the proof of his wife's previous name during a deposition shortly before his death, it looks like her husband probably knew of her genetalia issue when they married, but may not have known that she had been classified as male at birth, had ever lived as a man, or had changed her name more than a decade earlier.
Post Merge: July 20, 2010, 08:25:54 AM
As a lawyer licensed in Texas, I have taken a great interest in the law regarding the Littleton v Prange case over the years. That is the court case that the deceased's ex wife and parents are relying on as precedent to establish that the sex assigned at birth is immutable for purposes of marriage in Texas. But the claims that it is the law in Texas are unfounded.
The Littleton v Prange decision was a 4th circuit Texas court of appeals decision. It was only binding precedent in the San Antonio area, not Houston. Plus, the Texas Legislature voted unanimously in 2009 to permit applicants for marriage licenses to present a court ordered gender change to establish the identity of the applicant. Thus, the Littleton case was rejected by statute and is no longer binding precedent in any jurisdiction. Based on the Widow's comments in her interview, it appears she did obtain a Court Ordered Gender Change and had a new birth certificate issued. Houston is perhaps the best possible jurisdiction in Texas to bring this case, as it is the only Texas City with an openly LGBT mayor.
Even without those things, the Littleton holding should be narrowly construed to its facts, where the individual has a Texas Birth Certificate. A careful reading of the case reveals that the actual holding is based on the Texas Statute regarding changing birth certificates, and that it controlled because Ms Littleton's birth certificate was issued in Texas. In other words, it was never settled that a person born in another state or country, arriving in Texas with an amended birth certificate that was amended in accordance with the laws of the state or country of origin, would not be considered the new gender in Texas for purposes of marriage. So if Littleton v Prang were still precedeant anywhere, it would only establish that a person
born in Texas remains the sex assigned at birth unless the statute is followed to show that an error was made in that classification at birth. Moreover, a lot of people have thought that means a gene test, but if the Widow in this case lacked male reproductive organs from birth, who is to say she wouldn't have prevailed even under Littleton v Prang precedent?
This has not been legal advice.
