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

[NYcarbineer]

It is totally irrelevant whether gays are born that way or not. You don't have to be born in some certain way in order to have rights.
No one for example has to be born Catholic in order to have the right to practice Catholicism.

What is relevant is that a homosexual relationship isn't a person. You have the right to go to a Catholic church or sodomize a man but there's no Constitutional right to a marriage. Incest and racial laws were put in place because of reproduction (it's a birds and bees thing, you wouldn't understand) so the whole gay marriage schtick is to mimic traditional marriages while condemning tradition.

There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. There are laws applicable to marriage and the rights thereof.

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. It's defined at the state level. Is that news to you? You also missed my point, a relationship isn't a person so you can't claim it has protection.

States cannot make laws that violate the Constitution. States may be able to make marriage laws, but those marriage laws must be compliant with civil rights protections in the Constitution.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Is the "father" related to Woody Allen ?

 

[WinterBorn]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

No it is not. They are not biologically related, which is the basis for bans in incestuous marriages.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

This is another thing that puts a nail in the gay argument. They were father and son. That's sick.

Misty

NO

THEY

ARE

NOT

FATHER

AND

SON.

 

[bripat9643]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

No it is not. They are not biologically related, which is the basis for bans in incestuous marriages.

The queers continually claim that reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so biology is irrelevant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

Fuck. It ISN'T INCEST IF THEY AREN'T RELATED.

How many times is your nonsense going to be spewed???

If a parent can marry his adopted child, then how can anyone argue against allowing a parent to marry his biological child? What's the legal distinction?

You answered your own question.

The distinction is that one is biological family and the other is not related.

DUH.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

You're clouding the Gruberite mind with logic again.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

Technically that's true. If he had adopted a child, the law would now allow a parent/child relationship to morph into a marriage. And that cannot be kept from natural parent/children. The refusal would be legally arbitrary and unfair. Good catch there bripat!

That is not true. Point to the law please.

 

[bripat9643]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

Fuck. It ISN'T INCEST IF THEY AREN'T RELATED.

How many times is your nonsense going to be spewed???

If a parent can marry his adopted child, then how can anyone argue against allowing a parent to marry his biological child? What's the legal distinction?

You answered your own question.

The distinction is that one is biological family and the other is not related.

DUH.

Queers have consistently denied that biology is a relevant factor in marriage.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

Fuck. It ISN'T INCEST IF THEY AREN'T RELATED.

How many times is your nonsense going to be spewed???

If a parent can marry his adopted child, then how can anyone argue against allowing a parent to marry his biological child? What's the legal distinction?

You answered your own question.

The distinction is that one is biological family and the other is not related.

DUH.

Queers have consistently denied that biology is a relevant factor in marriage.

You asked "If a parent can marry his adopted child, then how can anyone argue against allowing a parent to marry his biological child? What's the legal distinction?"

ADOPTED does not mean the same thing as BIOLOGICAL.

Look it up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.​

Did you even read the article you quoted?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

Technically that's true. If he had adopted a child, the law would now allow a parent/child relationship to morph into a marriage. And that cannot be kept from natural parent/children. The refusal would be legally arbitrary and unfair. Good catch there bripat!

No and a HUGE leap.

And adopted person does not "morph" in to a biological relative. This marriage is not incest.

I can't believe some of you don't GET this.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

No it isn't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This reminds me of the time that Ted Nugent legally "adopted" his underage girlfriend because he couldn't marry her...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.​

Not really. It's more like a silly reaction to a problem being fixed. Good for them.

You may think it's "silly" now, but you have to be stupid not to realize that every court case can become the basis for future court decisions.

You have to be stupid.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When RW hero and serial pedophile Ted Nugent legally adopted an underage girl so he could screw her, she did not become his biological "daughter".

Is THAT okay with you phobes?

The 10 Craziest Things Ted Nugent Has Done - BuzzFeed News

Ted Nugent and Pele Massa - The Frisky

Ted Nugent Admits to Sex Addiction with Young Girls - Self confessed pedophile Sex Offender Issues

 

[Pop23]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

If you base incest in the classical, traditional way, but soon it will have to be redefined as is being done with marriage.

Seems to me, when you strip away everything from a civil marriage, you must.....

Love: the government can't mandate, nor test for love

Sex: the government can't mandate sexual intimacy

Faithfulness: a traditional value that the government can't mandate.

So marriage is simply a new financial tool open to 10's of millions for lower taxes and better employer benefits.

I find it funny that gays think this is about them, when there are far more straight same sex couples that can/will seek a $50.00 marriage license to save a pot load of money.

Marriage simply becomes an IRA or 401k, and the couple ....an LLC or S corp.

Hell, gays could possibly be a small minority of same sex marriage.

Why should same sex siblings be denied the right to marry SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.

 

[Pop23]

The right wing slippery slope is a funny thing to watch. Imagine the gyrations one can arrive at given the conservative mind, everything leads to bad places. Can someone tell me how they get out of bed or walk out the door? Surely bad awaits them there.

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

A slippery slope?

What compelling government interest is their to not allow a same sex straight pair of siblings from marrying?

Please be so kind to answer so we can see if that slope actually exists.

 

[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.​

Not really. It's more like a silly reaction to a problem being fixed. Good for them.

You may think it's "silly" now, but you have to be stupid not to realize that every court case can become the basis for future court decisions.

You have to be stupid.

Yes, stupid like the defenders of so-called "gay marriage."

 

[bripat9643]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

If you base incest in the classical, traditional way, but soon it will have to be redefined as is being done with marriage.

Seems to me, when you strip away everything from a civil marriage, you must.....

Love: the government can't mandate, nor test for love

Sex: the government can't mandate sexual intimacy

Faithfulness: a traditional value that the government can't mandate.

So marriage is simply a new financial tool open to 10's of millions for lower taxes and better employer benefits.

I find it funny that gays think this is about them, when there are far more straight same sex couples that can/will seek a $50.00 marriage license to save a pot load of money.

Marriage simply becomes an IRA or 401k, and the couple ....an LLC or S corp.

Hell, gays could possibly be a small minority of same sex marriage.

Why should same sex siblings be denied the right to marry SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.

Yep, marriage is now fundamentally no different in character than a 401K. It's just another government benefit open to all.