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

[Pop23]

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.

So it was better as a government benefit only available to a select group?

So I guess incest is now open for redefinition and the slippery slope falicy is busted.

It's hard to believe he's actually defending incest. At least he's consistent.

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

 

[Silhouette]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

 

[Pop23]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Such is the brave new world

 

[BULLDOG]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

 

[bripat9643]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

You're desperately trying to ignore the fact that their "loophole" sets a legal precedent. If they can get married, then what's to stop a parent from marrying his biological child?

 

[Pop23]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

You're desperately trying to ignore the fact that their "loophole" sets a legal precedent. If they can get married, then what's to stop a parent from marrying his biological child?

Can't discriminate can we?

If Dad wants to leave Son the business, without a huge inheritance tax, it's only fair they can marry, right?

Especially if both are straight.

 

[BULLDOG]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

You're desperately trying to ignore the fact that their "loophole" sets a legal precedent. If they can get married, then what's to stop a parent from marrying his biological child?

Get back with me when there is a parent and child wanting to get married. Dumbass

 

[bripat9643]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

You're desperately trying to ignore the fact that their "loophole" sets a legal precedent. If they can get married, then what's to stop a parent from marrying his biological child?

Get back with me when there is a parent and child wanting to get married. Dumbass

That's another typical dumbass queer argument. I remember when people scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

So it was better as a government benefit only available to a select group?

hmmmm . . . yeah, 95% of the public is a "select few."

How may times do you have to prove that you're a retard and a buffoon?

When are you getting divorced? You said same sex marriage was going to destroy your marriage.

Were you just spewing shit?

I never said that, you blithering idiot.

So now you admit that same sex marriage will have NO adverse affect on your marriage, or anyone else's?

State that for the record, please.

Stupid, oft repeated syllogism. You ASSume that people aren't concerned about how things affect society, that they vote only on issues that impact them directly.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Yep, and this is going to lead to legalized incest. Man these people are just nutters. It really is scary.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

The two men in the OP are both in their 70s. The adoption took place in 2000. The ONLY reason the adoption took place was that they wanted to have some basic rights and protections that could not be gained any other way. In NY they had registered as Domestic Partners. But PA didn't recognize that. So, in order to make sure their relationship had some legal basis, they did the adoption. Also, a Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was granted, so they are actually not in that relationship any longer.

 

[WinterBorn]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

All the hoopla ignores the basic facts of this case.

"So, a week ago, the father and son’s Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply became two single men now allowed to marry."
from: Father to marry son with court s blessing

If the courts allow a 50 year old man to "adopt" another 50 year old man, you should wonder about the courts.

 

[PratchettFan]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

All the hoopla ignores the basic facts of this case.

"So, a week ago, the father and son’s Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply became two single men now allowed to marry."
from: Father to marry son with court s blessing

If the courts allow a 50 year old man to "adopt" another 50 year old man, you should wonder about the courts.

Or wonder about a system where people have to go through that nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

All the hoopla ignores the basic facts of this case.

"So, a week ago, the father and son’s Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply became two single men now allowed to marry."
from: Father to marry son with court s blessing

If the courts allow a 50 year old man to "adopt" another 50 year old man, you should wonder about the courts.

Or wonder about a system where people have to go through that nonsense.

Exactly! These fools create a system that won't allow a same-sex couple the basic benefits that other couples enjoy, then go nuts over the way they get around it.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

The two men in the OP are both in their 70s. The adoption took place in 2000. The ONLY reason the adoption took place was that they wanted to have some basic rights and protections that could not be gained any other way. In NY they had registered as Domestic Partners. But PA didn't recognize that. So, in order to make sure their relationship had some legal basis, they did the adoption. Also, a Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was granted, so they are actually not in that relationship any longer.

Then they have made a legal mockery of the very important and vital institution of adoption. That cannot be manipulated by the LGBT militia to serve their own whims. Such is the underscoring of the flippant stance and nonchalance the LGBT group gives the importance of the parent/child relationship.

They should be legally punished for making a mockery of adoption at the expense of the integrity of that institution for the benefit and protection of children and the child/parent relationship.

This longrunning penchant of the LGBT machine for using legal loopholes to exact an Agenda that seeks to disrupt the welbeing of children is becoming more disturbing by the week...not even the month or the year. We have reached a critical mass of insanity and if it isn't stopped soon, their will be a type of chaos that may not be able to be remedied.

Boys being allowed in girls' bathrooms, boys and girls being drugged with hormones to have amputation of healthy organs (sex attempted-change butchery), men marrying men, rendering "their children" motherless as an institution....making a mockery of adoption...fathers marrying sons.

...."vacation of adoption?" Is that the same thing as a divorce from your child? Why would that be exclusively a privelege of adoptive parents and not natural ones? Isn't that discrimination? And what's next, if you want society's approval (for now) on incest-marriage, all you have to do is legally distance yourself from your child and then you can marry them...violating the psychological parent/child bond with the blessings of society???????

Really, am I the ONLY person on the face of the earth with the balls enough to stand up and say ENOUGH!!! ?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Except no adoptive father has married his adoptive son.

The adoption was nullified- meaning legally there is no adoption.

Hence there is no legal incest.

If an adoptive father married his adopted daughter- or adopted son- while they were still his adopted children, that would break the laws on incest.

But that did not happen here- despite the shrill attempts of Brip to portray it as such.

 

[Syriusly]

Really, am I the ONLY person on the face of the earth with the balls enough to stand up and say ENOUGH!!! ?

You are the only person on earth who is this consumed with lying about homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

They must, I've drilled this down asking the same question at each stop:

What is the compelling state interest to deny?

This is the ultimate "throwing out the baby with the bath water scenerio" isn't it?

That's why comprehensive justice is so important in very weighty questions such as these..

Adopted children and natural children are indistinguishable legally as to the parent/child relationship. Therefore, if an adoptive father marries his adopted son, it is legally precisely the same as a natural father marrying his natural son. That is because what a parent means to a child is so very vital, that there cannot be "philosophical exceptions"

Children's welfare and trust in their parents is nothing to "drill down segmentally" at the expense of children's welfare and trust in their parents..

Obviously, they didn't want to wait until gay marriage was passed in their state (it will happen eventually) so they found a way to become legally related. It's a shame that they had to do it that way, but it works, and nobody is confusing their relationship with a standard parent child relationship. Loopholes are usually just available for corporations but luckily, this time some of the little people were able to benefit. Good for them.

You're desperately trying to ignore the fact that their "loophole" sets a legal precedent. If they can get married, then what's to stop a parent from marrying his biological child?

As soon as you can figure out how a biological parent can invalidate his adoption of his biological child, then you might have a legal precedent.

The problem you have is that adoptions get nullified- and always have been. I have a good friend whose parents nullified the adoption of his adoptive brother because the kid was psychotic. When asked, my friend is very clear he has no brother.

 

[Silhouette]

Except no adoptive father has married his adoptive son.

The adoption was nullified- meaning legally there is no adoption.

Hence there is no legal incest.

If an adoptive father married his adopted daughter- or adopted son- while they were still his adopted children, that would break the laws on incest.

But that did not happen here- despite the shrill attempts of Brip to portray it as such.

You don't divorce your child so you can marry your child. This is a new bastardization of parenthood and a mockery of the child/parent relationship vital in adoption. Welcome to the new LGBT America.

 

[Syriusly]

Except no adoptive father has married his adoptive son.

The adoption was nullified- meaning legally there is no adoption.

Hence there is no legal incest.

If an adoptive father married his adopted daughter- or adopted son- while they were still his adopted children, that would break the laws on incest.

But that did not happen here- despite the shrill attempts of Brip to portray it as such.

You don't divorce your child so you can marry your child. This is a new bastardization of parenthood and a mockery of the child/parent relationship vital in adoption. Welcome to the new LGBT America.

A straight couple would have just gotten married in the first place- since they could legally be married.

The bans on gay marriage led to this adoption- and the annulment of the adoption.

Now they will be legally married like they wanted to be in the first place, and just like any other couple.

Welcome to the new America.