(decedent and spouse married in Michigan in 1984, and moved to PA; in 2003, husband underwent gender reassignment to have female genitalia installed; husband's conduct destroyed marriage relationship with wife and wife taken back to MI in 2005 to live with daughter; children, as mother's guardian, filed for divorce on mother's behalf because she was suffering from dementia (age 79); husband filed motion for summary judgment on basis that children had no authority to file divorce on behalf of incapacitated ward; trial court disagreed and denied husband's motion; husband filed second motion for summary judgment on basis that trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant divorce because husband's conduct made him a "woman" which severed the marital relationship because of MI's constitutional and statutory ban on homosexual marriage; trial court denied husband's second motion; on appeal, court affirmed on both points; nothing in state statutory law or caselaw bars a guardian or conservator from filing complaint for divorce on behalf of incompetent spouse; parties entered into lawful marriage contract at time of marriage that they cannot mutually or unilaterally sever; marriage is more than a civil contract and only a court can terminate the relationship by decree of divorce; in any event, court noted that gender reassignment surgery has no effect in changing gender of person involved because chromosome makeup when person created not impacted and can never be altered).