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

[WinterBorn]

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.

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

 

[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.

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

And remember- people like Silhouette want to block any possibility of this couple having a legal relationship- they are not really outraged by the adoption and wedding- they are outraged that they are getting married.

 

[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..

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.

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

 

[BULLDOG]

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..

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.

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

No it won't. Quit whining.

 

[Silhouette]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

 

[Pop23]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

It would have to be so. I can't for the life of me see how a court could reverse its view after precedent has been codified. That is what equality is about.

So a same sex couple could do this why? Because they can't procreate?, then deny those rights to opposite sex couple because they CAN.

Another legal paradox.

 

[BULLDOG]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

 

[Pop23]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

 

[BULLDOG]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

 

[WinterBorn]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

If both the parent and the child are over 50 when the adoption is done, and over 70 when they undo the adoption, why not???

 

[WinterBorn]

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..

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.

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

What they did was not to the detriment of any child. That claim is bullshit.

 

[Pop23]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

And neither will same sex STRAIGHT couples. They can make just as much (probably hugely more) bank than gay couples.

 

[BULLDOG]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

And neither will same sex STRAIGHT couples. They can make just as much (probably hugely more) bank than gay couples.

No idea what your point might be, and don't really care. You're wrong, now go away.

 

[Pop23]

You can't adopt a child, then divorce that relationship so that you can later legally marry your child!!

Is that what you're saying should be allowed?

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

And neither will same sex STRAIGHT couples. They can make just as much (probably hugely more) bank than gay couples.

No idea what your point might be, and don't really care. You're wrong, now go away.

You think straight same sex couples should have fewer rights and benefits than same sex gay couples?

You a bigot?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm saying they found a loophole to fix their inability to be considered a legal family. A loophole that will probably never be used again because legalized gay marriage will be the law of the land soon. If you think they broke any laws, by all means, you should call the cops.

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

And neither will same sex STRAIGHT couples. They can make just as much (probably hugely more) bank than gay couples.

No idea what your point might be, and don't really care. You're wrong, now go away.

You think straight same sex couples should have fewer rights and benefits than same sex gay couples?

You a bigot?

Wow, only a right winger could get that out of anything I have ever said.

 

[Pop23]

You see the future?

Loopholes once opened, are incredibly had to close

I see enough of the future to know that same sex couples won't have to find loopholes to be considered a legal family before too long.

And neither will same sex STRAIGHT couples. They can make just as much (probably hugely more) bank than gay couples.

No idea what your point might be, and don't really care. You're wrong, now go away.

You think straight same sex couples should have fewer rights and benefits than same sex gay couples?

You a bigot?

Wow, only a right winger could get that out of anything I have ever said.

Obviously then you have no idea what a loophole is, and how loopholes open pathways that are difficult to block.

Why am I not surprised?

OBTW, I'm a moderate.

 

[Silhouette]

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

What they did was not to the detriment of any child. That claim is bullshit.

If one person successfully is allowed legally to divorce their adopted child and then use that divorce in order to legally marry that child, that is a direct legal harm to all orphaned children as to their psychological protection, established by the intent of the laws of adoption. Precedent allows that all children adopted may then be divorced by their parent in order so that parent may legally marry them.

You know how equality and precedents work. Don't play dumb for the convenience of your indefensible position..

 

[WinterBorn]

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

What they did was not to the detriment of any child. That claim is bullshit.

If one person successfully is allowed legally to divorce their adopted child and then use that divorce in order to legally marry that child, that is a direct legal harm to all orphaned children as to their psychological protection, established by the intent of the laws of adoption. Precedent allows that all children adopted may then be divorced by their parent in order so that parent may legally marry them.

You know how equality and precedents work. Don't play dumb for the convenience of your indefensible position..

And each person is responsible for their own actions. These two men did nothing new. There have been "adoptions" to help same-sex couples gain rights since the early 1900's (at least). Adoptions have been nullified for centuries. But now you wish to blame every future incident involving children on two men who did the adoption when they were in their 50s?? That is ridiculous.

But this is typical. Josh Duggar made a career out of preaching that gay marriage was a danger to children. All while he was abusing little girls.

 

[Syriusly]

This couple, together for 50 years, had to find any loopholes they could to make arrangements to have basic things other couples take for granted and to provide for their planning for late life eventualities. If it is a mockery, it was done because people like you made a mockery of their 5 decades of being together in a relationship.

They were bastardizing the sacred parent/child bond that adoption laws intended. They were manipulating a system to the detriment of children ultimately. Precedent exists in law.

I swear to God, intentional or not, this insidious movement & progression will be to the demise of children ultimately.

What they did was not to the detriment of any child. That claim is bullshit.

If one person successfully is allowed legally to divorce their adopted child and then use that divorce in order to legally marry that child, that is a direct legal harm to all orphaned children as to their psychological protection, established by the intent of the laws of adoption. Precedent allows that all children adopted may then be divorced by their parent in order so that parent may legally marry them.

You know how equality and precedents work. Don't play dumb for the convenience of your indefensible position..

We do know how precedents work.
You don't.

All you see is you anti-gay agenda.

Are these legal ploys?

Yes.

Are these legal ploys any different than what heterosexuals have done?

No.
Man Adopts Girlfriend John Goodman s Daughter Could Protect Assets In Wrongful Death Lawsuit
A wealthy Florida man has adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as a daughter in a move critics say will protect the man's assets during an upcoming lawsuit surrounding a deadly car accident.

Polo Club Palm Beach founder John Goodman, 48, adopted his longtime partner Heather Laruso Hutchins in October, The Palm Beach Post reports.

If there is a 'precedent' then my fellow heterosexuals set it long before homosexuals decided to use the same legal ploys.

From 3 years ago- and oh how outraged all of you were at the time.......(not)....

The 48-year-old millionaire who legally adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend just a month before he appears in court on DUI manslaughter charges and faces a potentially financially devastating civil trial can still legally marry and have sex with her, RadarOnline.com can exclusively report.


As RadarOnline.com previously reported, John Goodman was involved in a fatal car accident in Palm Beach, Florida in February 2010 that led to the death of 23-year-old engineering student, Scott Wilson, and has since legally adopted his longtime lover, Heather Laruso Hutchins, 42, which many believe was to protect his reported hundred million dollar fortune.


“While there is nothing illegal about this relationship. It is odd, weird and against our societal norms,” Florida-based marital and family law attorney Ben Hodas told RadarOnline.com in an exclusive interview.

 

[Silhouette]

Not buying it Syriusly..