'Father' To Marry 'Son' In Bucks County (PA) -- With Court's Blessing

[ChrisL]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

It means "mentally regressed." I think that describes you perfectly.

 

[Silhouette]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

It means "mentally regressed." I think that describes you perfectly.

Yeah, except that isn't the topic of the thread is it. Whoops. Caught you at it again. Shall I report you again too? Answer this question or be reported for trying to derail the topic

"do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?"

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's beginning: the first step on the road to legalized incest:

Father To Marry Son In Bucks County -- With Court s Blessing Doylestown-Buckingham-New Britain PA Patch​

This week, Bill Novak and Norman MacArthur will go from being father and son to a married couple.

Before you jump to conclusions, consider this: Novak and MacArthur are not father and son biologically. Rather, their relationship through adoption was solely a technicality to enable the rights they desperately wanted but were not legally able to attain as a married couple.

The same-sex couple, who have been together for more than 50 years, registered as domestic partners in New York City in 1994. After moving to Bucks County, they learned that Pennsylvania law does not recognize domestic partners and prohibits same sex marriages.​

“The time came about to do estate planning,” MacArthur said. “We were told at that time ‘hell would freeze over before Pennsylvania approves same sex marriage’.”

They were advised by a lawyer that the only avenue to becoming legally related was through adoption. “It was the only legal method we could use in Pennsylvania to give underpinning to our relationship,” MacArthur said.​

When I oppose things, I don't go out and do the thing I oppose.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I oppose higher taxes. I do NOT voluntarrily send the government more money than I have to then say, "That'll show ya!"

 

[bripat9643]

It's beginning: the first step on the road to legalized incest:

Father To Marry Son In Bucks County -- With Court s Blessing Doylestown-Buckingham-New Britain PA Patch​

This week, Bill Novak and Norman MacArthur will go from being father and son to a married couple.

Before you jump to conclusions, consider this: Novak and MacArthur are not father and son biologically. Rather, their relationship through adoption was solely a technicality to enable the rights they desperately wanted but were not legally able to attain as a married couple.

The same-sex couple, who have been together for more than 50 years, registered as domestic partners in New York City in 1994. After moving to Bucks County, they learned that Pennsylvania law does not recognize domestic partners and prohibits same sex marriages.​

“The time came about to do estate planning,” MacArthur said. “We were told at that time ‘hell would freeze over before Pennsylvania approves same sex marriage’.”

They were advised by a lawyer that the only avenue to becoming legally related was through adoption. “It was the only legal method we could use in Pennsylvania to give underpinning to our relationship,” MacArthur said.​

When I oppose things, I don't go out and do the thing I oppose.

What's your point?

 

[Silhouette]

What's your point?

Yeah Delta, what's your point? Are you for or against these two setting a legal precedent that any parent can divorce their child in order to marry them?

 

[Silhouette]

According to Wiki:

John B. Goodman industrialist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

During the civil trial proceedings, Goodman attempted to adopt his adult girlfriend, 42-year-old Heather Ann Hutchins, in a ploy to protect some of his assets from being attached by Wilson's family. This was not allowed by the courts.
​

So no banana.

What state allows parents to divorce their children so they can marry them? Is that act limited to just one parent/child relationship or can any parent/child divorce and then marry each other?

 

[PratchettFan]

According to Wiki:

John B. Goodman industrialist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

During the civil trial proceedings, Goodman attempted to adopt his adult girlfriend, 42-year-old Heather Ann Hutchins, in a ploy to protect some of his assets from being attached by Wilson's family. This was not allowed by the courts.
​

So no banana.

What state allows parents to divorce their children so they can marry them? Is that act limited to just one parent/child relationship or can any parent/child divorce and then marry each other?

Apparently Pennsylvania.

 

[ChrisL]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

It means "mentally regressed." I think that describes you perfectly.

Yeah, except that isn't the topic of the thread is it. Whoops. Caught you at it again. Shall I report you again too? Answer this question or be reported for trying to derail the topic

"do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?"

Of course not, retardo. That is why this particular case went to court and was APPROVED by the judge.

 

[Skylar]

What's your point?

Yeah Delta, what's your point? Are you for or against these two setting a legal precedent that any parent can divorce their child in order to marry them?

'Any' parent? You clearly aren't familiar with the specific points of this case. Their case was specifically approved by a judge based on their unique circumstances.

Thus the precedent you cite, isn't.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah Delta, what's your point? Are you for or against these two setting a legal precedent that any parent can divorce their child in order to marry them?

'Any' parent? You clearly aren't familiar with the specific points of this case. Their case was specifically approved by a judge based on their unique circumstances.

Thus the precedent you cite, isn't.

Their "unique circumstances"? You mean lying and misusing the parent/child legal relationship to bed down together with society's approval and tax benefits to boot? Do you hope they also adopt some younger boys? That would be the next obvious question...

 

[Silhouette]

What makes age so special in this? The adoption laws establish an unbreakable parent/child bond. Allowing loopholes in this using equal application of laws means that everyone has loopholes now to divorce their child so they can marry them.

Prove me wrong. Argue the legal logic how this cannot be so? And yet you won't. You all remain silent because you know I'm right about this.

 

[bripat9643]

What makes age so special in this? The adoption laws establish an unbreakable parent/child bond. Allowing loopholes in this using equal application of laws means that everyone has loopholes now to divorce their child so they can marry them.

Prove me wrong. Argue the legal logic how this cannot be so? And yet you won't. You all remain silent because you know I'm right about this.

Because queers are special, don't ya know? They keep talking about equality, but they keep demanding special treatment.

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point?

Yeah Delta, what's your point? Are you for or against these two setting a legal precedent that any parent can divorce their child in order to marry them?

'Any' parent? You clearly aren't familiar with the specific points of this case. Their case was specifically approved by a judge based on their unique circumstances.

Thus the precedent you cite, isn't.

Since when do laws allow exceptions for "special circumstances" that aren't mentioned in the law?

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

It means "mentally regressed." I think that describes you perfectly.

Yeah, except that isn't the topic of the thread is it. Whoops. Caught you at it again. Shall I report you again too? Answer this question or be reported for trying to derail the topic

"do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?"

Of course not, retardo. That is why this particular case went to court and was APPROVED by the judge.

the law doesn't allow the judge to make any such exception, numskull. Do you actually believe judges can rewrite laws whenever they choose?

I don't know why I ask questions like that. Of course you believe it. You're a liberal numskull.

 

[Silhouette]

the law doesn't allow the judge to make any such exception, numskull. Do you actually believe judges can rewrite laws whenever they choose?

I don't know why I ask questions like that. Of course you believe it. You're a liberal numskull.

Well you'll have to forgive their confusion. Several lower federal circuit courts re-wrote the specific question of law Upheld 56 times in Windsor 2013 behind SCOTUS' back outside the mandates of due process provided for in the rules of the federal appelate system. Windsor Upheld and iterated 56 times in 25 pages that states have the authority on the question of legal/not legal "gay marriage". The lower courts purposefully misread that and overturned it from underneath; multiple times. Which is sedition.

So, yeah, I guess judges acting as autocrats at their whim is what the American Legal system has had modeled for it in recent years. The lower court judges are just following the trend of usurping the Constitution and instituting Oligarchy and Autocratic rule in its place.

 

[Silhouette]

I've been asking, but nobody wants to tell me how if this one couple of men pulled this off, how that decision by a judge who enabled them could not be used as case law to support another parent/child bond to break up? Remember, lady justice believes in equality and she wears a blindfold.