Part of the slippery slope??

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Skeptical on Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:30 pm

The legalization of same-sex marriage has given way to a new problem for a Pennsylvania couple, who technically are father and son.

Before states across the country began striking down bans on same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue nationwide, some gay couples used adoption laws as a way to gain legal recognition as a family, and the related benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.

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.

"We never thought we'd see the day" that same-sex marriage would be legal in Pennsylvania, Esposito, 78, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The adoption "gave us the most legitimate thing available to us" at the time, said Bosee, 68.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/same-sex-marriage-adoption-father-son-pennsylvania/index.html

Oh, those pesky unintended consequences of the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriages  AKA, can of worms.
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2653
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Skeptical wrote:
The legalization of same-sex marriage has given way to a new problem for a Pennsylvania couple, who technically are father and son.

Before states across the country began striking down bans on same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue nationwide, some gay couples used adoption laws as a way to gain legal recognition as a family, and the related benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.

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.

"We never thought we'd see the day" that same-sex marriage would be legal in Pennsylvania, Esposito, 78, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The adoption "gave us the most legitimate thing available to us" at the time, said Bosee, 68.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/same-sex-marriage-adoption-father-son-pennsylvania/index.html

Oh, those pesky unintended consequences of the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriages  AKA, can of worms.

Did you even read the article?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  nightlight88 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:52 pm

hey dr mengela,
ham flower is looking for you
avatar
nightlight88

Posts : 1680
Join date : 2012-12-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:58 pm

So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:00 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:31 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:37 pm

In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:45 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
What makes you say that?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:49 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:03 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.

Of which inheritance is one:

"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.”"

http://www.kvor.com/news/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/

Just like in United States v Windsor. Except without the fraud.

"Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor





avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:18 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
What makes you say that?

Let's just color you stupid and leave it at that.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:23 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.

Of which inheritance is one:

"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.”"

http://www.kvor.com/news/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/

Just like in United States v Windsor. Except without the fraud.

"Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor






I know of two couples that have been separated for many years but remained married explicitly for tax purposes.  Would you like to see them investigated for fraud as well?


Last edited by Dr. Jones on Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:37 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:27 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
What makes you say that?

Let's just color you stupid and leave it at that.

Due process is still alive and well in this country whether you like it or not, and much to your dismay it also applies to homosexuals. Now where's your proof?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:51 am

I'm still wondering what the whole point of this thread is.... Skeptical?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:35 am

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
What makes you say that?

Let's just color you stupid and leave it at that.

Due process is still alive and well in this country whether you like it or not, and much to your dismay it also applies to homosexuals.  Now where's your proof?

That would be "substantive due process" which protects liberty rather than equal protection in Obergefell v Hodges. Substantive due process is a swamp of logic and reason of an invented legal doctrine by an activist SCOTUS. Still reading your copy of "Constitutional Law for Fcukstiks" I see.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:37 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:So why weren't they charged with incest? Pennsylvania law doesn't make a distinction between sanguine and adopted relatives.

Did they have sex?

Considering that they have been a "couple" for over 40 years and they consider each "partners", there's not a snowballs's chance in hell they haven't been having sex.
What makes you say that?

Let's just color you stupid and leave it at that.

Due process is still alive and well in this country whether you like it or not, and much to your dismay it also applies to homosexuals.  Now where's your proof?

That would be "substantive due process" which protects liberty rather than equal protection in Obergefell v Hodges. Substantive due process is a swamp of logic and reason of an invented legal doctrine by an activist SCOTUS. Still reading your copy of "Constitutional Law for Fcukstiks" I see.


Where is your proof that they are having sex??
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:33 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.

Of which inheritance is one:

"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.”"

http://www.kvor.com/news/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/

Just like in United States v Windsor. Except without the fraud.

"Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor






I know of two couples that have been separated for many years but remained married explicitly for tax purposes.  Would you like to see them investigated for fraud as well?

It doesn't matter if they originally entered their marriage legitimately. If they entered into marriage without the intent of being a couple so as to derive some benefit from the government (ie inheritance or citizenship or a green card in immigration) then they committed fraud and couples have been prosecuted, especially in cases of immigration. If they live separate now and remain married for inheritance or some other benefit, then no fraud is committed because the original intent was legal.

Why should we make an exception for a fraudulent adoption? Why are gays given exemption from a fraudulent act while heterosexual couples aren't?
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:34 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.

Of which inheritance is one:

"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.”"

http://www.kvor.com/news/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/

Just like in United States v Windsor. Except without the fraud.

"Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor






I know of two couples that have been separated for many years but remained married explicitly for tax purposes.  Would you like to see them investigated for fraud as well?

It doesn't matter if they originally entered their marriage legitimately. If they entered into marriage without the intent of being a couple so as to derive some benefit from the government (ie inheritance or citizenship or a green card in immigration) then they committed fraud and couples have been prosecuted, especially in cases of immigration. If they live separate now and remain married for inheritance or some other benefit, then no fraud is committed because the original intent was legal.

Why should we make an exception for a fraudulent adoption? Why are gays given exemption from a fraudulent act while heterosexual couples aren't?
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:26 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:In fact they should not only be charged with incest but also fraud since it was obvious their intent was to defraud the state of inheritance taxes

They actually did it for end of life rights.

Of which inheritance is one:

"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.”"

http://www.kvor.com/news/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/

Just like in United States v Windsor. Except without the fraud.

"Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor






I know of two couples that have been separated for many years but remained married explicitly for tax purposes.  Would you like to see them investigated for fraud as well?

It doesn't matter if they originally entered their marriage legitimately. If they entered into marriage without the intent of being a couple so as to derive some benefit from the government (ie inheritance or citizenship or a green card in immigration) then they committed fraud and couples have been prosecuted, especially in cases of immigration. If they live separate now and remain married for inheritance or some other benefit, then no fraud is committed because the original intent was legal.

Why should we make an exception for a fraudulent adoption? Why are gays given exemption from a fraudulent act while heterosexual couples aren't?

One adopted the other legally, and in good faith, because of our BS marriage laws.   Their intention was to become a family and enjoy all the legal benefits that went along with it,  and that's what they did.  How is that fraud?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:16 pm

Speaking of slippery slopes, the Mormons have decided to not only demonize same-sex couples, but also bar their children from being part of the church. These rules are effective immediately for all current same-sex partners with children. These innocent children will have to wait until they are of age and then denounce their own parents to be allowed back into the Mormon church. What's next? The parents of homosexuals will be barred for raising a gay child? God would be so proud.

Mormon church labels same-sex couples apostates
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/us/mormon-church-policy/index.html
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:40 pm

Is this the slippery slope?

Judge: Lesbians can't foster child
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/12/judge-foster-child-lesbian-couple-lv.cnn
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:37 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:Is this the slippery slope?

Judge: Lesbians can't foster child
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/12/judge-foster-child-lesbian-couple-lv.cnn

Ashleigh Banfield? An insuferable reporter so bad that MSNBC got rid of her. A non-lawyer doing a legal show? Thanks for reminding me why I hate CNN.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:42 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:Is this the slippery slope?

Judge: Lesbians can't foster child
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/12/judge-foster-child-lesbian-couple-lv.cnn

Ashleigh Banfield? An insuferable reporter so bad that MSNBC got rid of her. A non-lawyer doing a legal show? Thanks for reminding me why I hate CNN.

That's nice. Anything to say about the story?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:29 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:Is this the slippery slope?

Judge: Lesbians can't foster child
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/12/judge-foster-child-lesbian-couple-lv.cnn

Ashleigh Banfield? An insuferable reporter so bad that MSNBC got rid of her. A non-lawyer doing a legal show? Thanks for reminding me why I hate CNN.

That's nice.  Anything to say about the story?

The story is so badly reported it's hard to have an opinion. Dumbass Banfield fails to even mention why this case is in the court system. All I hear and see from twit reporter is a world cloud and lots of hand waving.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Dr. Evil on Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:48 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:Is this the slippery slope?

Judge: Lesbians can't foster child
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/12/judge-foster-child-lesbian-couple-lv.cnn

Ashleigh Banfield? An insuferable reporter so bad that MSNBC got rid of her. A non-lawyer doing a legal show? Thanks for reminding me why I hate CNN.

That's nice.  Anything to say about the story?

The story is so badly reported it's hard to have an opinion. Dumbass Banfield fails to even mention why this case is in the court system. All I hear and see from twit reporter is a world cloud and lots of hand waving.

I don't know what a world cloud is and I saw very little hand waving. I don't know what more you are looking for in the reporting, and obviously the court system always has an interest in child custody cases.

Are you implying that these ladies did something that was to the court's dissatisfaction, that made the judge take a second look at their ability foster this child? Are you also implying that Ashleigh Banfield conveniently omitted that part of the story?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3746
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Part of the slippery slope??

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum