Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Stupid Laws Continue to Hinder Some LGBT Monogamist Marriages

We've written before about how some LGBT people used adult adoption law to somewhat offset the discrimination preventing them from legally marrying, and the problems now faced by those who now want to marry. It should not matter if one person adopted the other. It should not matter if people are considered family or close relatives by birth, consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. All that should matter in getting married: 1) Are they adults? 2) Do they consent to being married to each other? That's all that should matter.

Here's a current report from Evan Perez and Ariane de Vogue at

Nino Esposito, a retired teacher, adopted his partner Roland "Drew" Bosee, a former freelance and technical writer, in 2012, after more than 40 years of being a couple.

Now, they're trying to undo the adoption to get married and a state trial court judge has rejected their request, saying his ability to annul adoptions is generally limited to instances of fraud.
Well let's solve the problem by making it so they can marry without undoing the adoption, OK?

But Judge Lawrence J. O'Toole, of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, ruled against the couple. He noted that the primary purpose of the adoption was to reduce the Pennsylvania inheritance tax payable upon the death of one of the men from 15% to 4%, "as the two men would now be in a parent-child relationship instead of a third party relationship."

O'Toole said he was "sensitive to the situation" but noted that despite the fact Esposito and Bosee desire to marry, "they cannot do so because they are legally father and son."
Then overturn the law saying that fathers and sons can't marry. There's no good reason to have such a law.

Andrew Potts at deals with this topic, too.
It has been revealed that at least 25 US states, including Pennsylvania, have laws on their books that would see gay people who legally adopted their partners to insure inheritance rights before same-sex marriage was legal treated the same as incestuous relatives if they marry.

Such couples could technically find themselves facing ten years in prison in convicted.

Some state court judges have allowed same-sex couples in this situation to have the adoptions annulled before they then marry.

However other state court judges have refused to revoke adoptions for people in this situation because of legal precedent around adoption where only those entered into for the sake of fraud are eligible for annulment to prevent child abandonment.
It's very, very simple: let adults share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with ANY and ALL consenting adults. This problem and many others would disappear. Let an adult, regardless of that adult's gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, marry any consenting adults.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.