Arizona & California Courts Recognize Marriages between Transgender Men and Women

Two recent court decisions show how far we have come in getting the judicial system to understand and respect gender transition.  In Miller v. Angel, No. GD053180 (Cal. Superior Ct., Los Angeles County, August 6, 2014), and Beatie v. Beatie, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0209 (Arizona Court of Appeals, August 13, 2014), the courts found that they do have jurisdiction to dissolve out-of-state marriages between a transgender man and a woman, which would first require recognizing … <Read More>

Transgender Woman Wins New Trial on Inheritance From Her Husband

A three-judge panel of the Texas Court of Appeals ruled on February 13 that Nikki Araguz, a transgender woman who is the surviving spouse of Texas firefighter Thomas Araguz, is entitled to a trial of the question whether her marriage with Thomas was valid. Thomas died without a will, and his mother and ex-wife (suing on behalf of his children) contend that the marriage was not valid and thus cannot provide the basis for an … <Read More>

Indiana Appeals Court Says Spouse’s Gender Change Doesn’t Void an Existing Marriage

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on December 20 that an existing different-sex  marriage is not rendered void when one of the spouses has obtained a legal judgment of gender change.  Reversing a ruling by Judge Valeri Haughton of the Monroe Circuit Court, Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the court in Davis v. Summers that this construction of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage would be “beyond the purview of our constitutional authority to … <Read More>

Hong Kong’s Highest Appeal Court Says Transgender Woman Can Marry Her Boyfriend

Overruling the Registrar of Marriages in Hong Kong, who refused to issue a marriage license to a “post-operative” transgender woman who sought to marry her male partner, the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ruled on May 13 that the woman, identified as W in court papers, was entitled to the license, although the majority of the court was not unanimous in its reasoning.  Ironically, such a right for a … <Read More>