Father & Son (by adoption, both of who are over 60) Fight for Right to Marry Each Other

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Interesting problem, via CNN:

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They're legally father and son

(CNN)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.

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon. Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships. Now these couples seek to marry, but first they must confront state adoption laws that provide no easy path to annulment.

In Pennsylvania, Esposito and Bosee knew other couples who successfully annulled their adoptions in order to marry.

They quickly made plans to do the same after Pennsylvania legalized marriage between same-sex couples in May 2014.

"We realized we could have a complete union, which is what we want," Esposito said.

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."

O'Toole said he was "sensitive to the situation" but noted that despite the fact Esposito and Bosee desire to marry, "they cannot do so because they are legally father and son."

"This Court welcomes direction from our appellate courts in handling parallel cases," O'Toole wrote.

"We don't believe the Pennsylvania judge who refused to annul this adoption was unsympathetic," said Witold Walczak, the Legal Director of the ACLU Pennsylvania, "he simply felt that the legal path to doing so should be forged by an appellate court."

"The ACLU is hopeful that the Superior Court will apply established legal principles to allow annulment of adoptions by same-sex couples who that they can finally partake of their constitutional right to marry," Walczak said.

While in most of the country there have not been problems implementing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges, there have been some pockets of resistance.

Some probate judges and other public officials in the South, citing religious objections, stopped issuing marriage licenses all together to avoid issuing licenses to gay couples.

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, in a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asked that the Justice Department weigh in on the side of Esposito and Bosee.

"LGBT couples should have the right to obtain a marriage license, no matter the state or jurisdiction in which they reside," Casey wrote. "In adoption cases such as these, the law has changed dramatically since the adoptions were first carried out."

Attorneys Mikhail Pappas and Andrew Gross, who represent Esposito and Bosee, say they would welcome help from the Justice Department to make clear their clients have a civil right at issue in the case.

In court papers, the attorneys argued: "The personal and social benefits of marriage are legion and unparalleled relative to any other association between individuals that our society formally sanctions and recognizes."

Dena Iverson, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department received Casey's letter and is reviewing his request.

Esposito and Bosee said they're being cautious now about planning a wedding. When they filed their adoption annulment they anticipated being able to marry the same day.

"We had our $80 in cash and we were ready to go across the street to get our license. Judge O'Toole had other ideas," Esposito said.

**Sigvatr**

Why did he adopt him to begin with?

**Nostromodamus**

Sigvatr wrote:
Why did he adopt him to begin with?

It says right in the quoted text; to gain legal recognition as a family.

**d-usa**

Sigvatr wrote:
Why did he adopt him to begin with?

In a nutshell:

Even though they have been a couple for 40 years, for many legal purposes they were still just friends and not relatives. So in situations where a family member would be required to make a decision (one of them was hospitalized as an example) the other one was just a friend and not a relative, or in situations with taxes where family members are treated differently than friends. Prior to same-sex marriage one of the few ways to become "family" was adoption.

**DarkTraveler777**

Sigvatr wrote:
Why did he adopt him to begin with?

Per the article:

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

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon. Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships.

Same-sex couples couldn't receive the same rights as hetero couples so it looks like these guys found a "loophole" to ensure that they could have the same rights afforded to hetero couples. Pretty sad that people had to go to the lengths of adoption in order ensure they could pass on property, be present during medical emergencies and provide health coverage to their same-sex partners.

Also, the title of this thread is pretty click-baity. If anything "Father & Adopted Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other" is more accurate and less sensational. The men in this story aren't biologically related, so why introduce a false sense of incest into the story?

**Iron_Captain**

I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry. It is so hilarious and sad at the same time.

**d-usa**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Also, the title of this thread is pretty click-baity. If anything "Father & Adopted Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other" is more accurate and less sensational. The men in this story aren't biologically related, so why introduce a false sense of incest into the story?

Well, I went with the CNN take on the headline. (Edit: I will seek MOD guidance and clicked the triangle for my "summon moderator" action)

But truthfully, the reason why they are father and son doesn't matter much to the law. The law just cares that they are legally father and son.

It is pretty tough that their only option for becoming family when they couldn't get married is now keeping them from being able to get married.

But I also think that the judge handled it in the best way possible and that I hope that this will help give guidance in the future. By punting this early in the legal process and kicking it up to the higher courts they might end up with fever different decisions in smaller jurisdictions and hopefully they will eventually end up with a decision at a higher level that applies to more people at once.

**DarkTraveler777**

d-usa wrote:

Well, I went with the CNN take on the headline. (Edit: I will seek MOD guidance and clicked the triangle for my "summon moderator" action)

But truthfully, the reason why they are father and son doesn't matter much to the law. The law just cares that they are legally father and son.

Totally fair. I just recalled some of the slippery-slope arguments around same-sex marriage (you know the gems: parents marrying kids, people marrying pets, etc.). I didn't want that crowd to have more ammunition with a title like this.

**Breotan**

Isn't there a process to divorce your parent? Emancipation or something? I could have sworn there was a movie based on that premise a few years back. They could do that and then run off to Vegas the next day, couldn't they?

**Frazzled**

Why do anything? Leave the government out of it. Have your ceremony and move on.

**DarkLink**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why did he adopt him to begin with?

Per the article:

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

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon. Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships.

Same-sex couples couldn't receive the same rights as hetero couples so it looks like these guys found a "loophole" to ensure that they could have the same rights afforded to hetero couples. Pretty sad that people had to go to the lengths of adoption in order ensure they could pass on property, be present during medical emergencies and provide health coverage to their same-sex partners.

Also, the title of this thread is pretty click-baity. If anything "Father & Adopted Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other" is more accurate and less sensational. The men in this story aren't biologically related, so why introduce a false sense of incest into the story?

But at least they didn't title it "first gay marriage, now gay incest marriage".

**zedmeister**

Have we had the "Who's your daddy?" joke yet?

What was that? Oh. I'll get me coat...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

DarkLink wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why did he adopt him to begin with?

Per the article:

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

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon. Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships.

Same-sex couples couldn't receive the same rights as hetero couples so it looks like these guys found a "loophole" to ensure that they could have the same rights afforded to hetero couples. Pretty sad that people had to go to the lengths of adoption in order ensure they could pass on property, be present during medical emergencies and provide health coverage to their same-sex partners.

Also, the title of this thread is pretty click-baity. If anything "Father & Adopted Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other" is more accurate and less sensational. The men in this story aren't biologically related, so why introduce a false sense of incest into the story?

But at least they didn't title it "first gay marriage, now gay incest marriage".

I bet Fox News did.

**Necros**

So, he adopted his "son" when he was like 65 years old? How do you adopt someone that's not a kid? Just always thought/assumed you could only adopt a minor.

**LordofHats**

Necros wrote:
So, he adopted his "son" when he was like 65 years old? How do you adopt someone that's not a kid? Just always thought/assumed you could only adopt a minor.

Yes you can adopt an adult. It's often used to smooth out the process of inheritance but is also often used for more sentimental reasons (and in this case, granting the 'son/father' certain rights they were otherwise denied).

**Killionaire**

Frazzled wrote:
Why do anything? Leave the government out of it. Have your ceremony and move on.

Getting married has a lot of legal implications. Many are not covered even within the framework of 'family', such as tax benefits and healthcare.

**CptJake**

As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

**angelofvengeance**

Interesting to see the lengths people are willing to go to so that they're legally recognised as a couple.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

No offense intended, but your country is so strange lol.

**Frazzled**

Does Britain permit gay marriage? Since when?

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

depends on where in the UK you are

Civil Partnerships (basically marriage but without the name came in in 2005), full on marriage with the name is fairly recent

The legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and came into force on 13 March 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014.

Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in Scotland was passed by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and took effect on 16 December 2014. The first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 16 December 2014 for same-sex couples previously in civil partnerships. The first same-sex marriage ceremonies for couples not in a civil partnership occurred on 31 December 2014.[4]

A majority of Northern Ireland parliament only just voted to allow it, but the DUP has blocked it (since it was not voted for by a majority of 'loyalist' MPs, a real shame but hopefully they'll get it passed within a few years)

**DarkTraveler777**

CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

I see you have yourself a wife. That means you were legally allowed to marry the person you wanted to. I am sure the fact that these two couldn't legally marry and had to resort to adoption annoyed the gak out of them too.

What exactly are you mad at? Do you personally know what their adoption process was like? Perhaps it was as stringent as your three were. So... are you just mad at Texas or what?

**Buttery Commissar**

CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

It's fethed up that was the only way for two people in love to be given any legal rights.
Did you have to fight for months to marry your loved one? Marriage is something most people take for granted.
It sucks that the system was so over zealous to protect children that it hurt your family, but can't you see how extraordinarily gak it must have been for them to do this in order to be considered family?

They are of an age where death is a very real possibility after 40 years together. How would anyone feel after that if they just had to walk away and had no say in legal matters or final care of their lover?

**Frazzled**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

I see you have yourself a wife. That means you were legally allowed to marry the person you wanted to. I am sure the fact that these two couldn't legally marry and had to resort to adoption annoyed the gak out of them too.

What exactly are you mad at? Do you personally know what their adoption process was like? Perhaps it was as stringent as your three were. So... are you just mad at Texas or what?

He's mad because he couldn't adopt children who needed adopting. Thats a very fair reason to be mad.

Inversely adult adoption has been a thing since the Romans.

**DarkTraveler777**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

I see you have yourself a wife. That means you were legally allowed to marry the person you wanted to. I am sure the fact that these two couldn't legally marry and had to resort to adoption annoyed the gak out of them too.

What exactly are you mad at? Do you personally know what their adoption process was like? Perhaps it was as stringent as your three were. So... are you just mad at Texas or what?

He's mad because he couldn't adopt children who needed adopting. Thats a very fair reason to be mad.

Inversely adult adoption has been a thing since the Romans.

Texas not allowing CptJake to adopt has nothing to do with these two gentlemen. Its also pretty atrocious for CptJake to crap on these guys who had to do something extreme in order to secure legal rights for their 40+ year relationship.

**CptJake**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.
It's fethed up that was the only way for two people in love to be given any legal rights.
Did you have to fight for months to marry your loved one? Marriage is something most people take for granted.
It sucks that the system was so over zealous to protect children that it hurt your family, but can't you see how extraordinarily gak it must have been for them to do this in order to be considered family?

They are of an age where death is a very real possibility after 40 years together. How would anyone feel after that if they just had to walk away and had no say in legal matters or final care of their lover?

Because wills and powers of attorney never work for working out the legal aspects or final care...

Adoption should not be used for this. It just shouldn't. It is a perversion of what adoption is supposed to be, namely taking on the legal responsibilities as a parent. As far as I know, these two did not intend to have a parent child relationship. And for the record, I would feel the same way if it was an older guy 'adopting' a younger lady or vice versa.

**Buttery Commissar**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.

My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.

I see you have yourself a wife. That means you were legally allowed to marry the person you wanted to. I am sure the fact that these two couldn't legally marry and had to resort to adoption annoyed the gak out of them too.

What exactly are you mad at? Do you personally know what their adoption process was like? Perhaps it was as stringent as your three were. So... are you just mad at Texas or what?

He's mad because he couldn't adopt children who needed adopting. Thats a very fair reason to be mad.

Inversely adult adoption has been a thing since the Romans.

He says right there what annoys him. That these two adults were "allowed" to do such an ass-backwards procedure in order to procure legal rights as family.

I'm not unsympathetic. You can't win, if standards and scrutiny of adoption were lowered, it opens the door to those minority cases of abuse. If they stay tight, kids miss out on homes.
But saying it's unfair that two adult men can do this (read: not minors, not vulnerable) is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

**Frazzled**

Well the fact they were both adults eliminates much of the scrutiny and reasoning for it.

**d-usa**

"I got fethed by the system, so others should get fethed as well" is just a stupid argument all around that doesn't make any sense.

He should be working on fixing the system that is broken for adopting children in his state if it's that broken instead of bitching about adult adoption laws in another state. Adult adoption serves a different purpose than child adoption.

**Nostromodamus**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Civil Partnerships (basically marriage but without the name came in in 2005), full on marriage with the name is fairly recent

Is the age of consent equal now too?

I seem to remember that as a kid there was a higher age of consent for homosexuals, unless I'm totally misremembering things...

**Buttery Commissar**

CptJake wrote:

Because wills and powers of attorney never work for working out the legal aspects or final care...

Adoption should not be used for this. It just shouldn't. It is a perversion of what adoption is supposed to be, namely taking on the legal responsibilities as a parent. As far as I know, these two did not intend to have a parent child relationship. And for the record, I would feel the same way if it was an older guy 'adopting' a younger lady or vice versa.

Wirst case scenario: When your partner dies, do you want to be spending time fighting legal battles and worrying about what will happen outside of what most folk do? You likely won't have to. Most of us won't.
Why should someone else have to, purely because theirs is the same gender?

It's a stupid system that led to this, but a tool is a tool. I'm sure that you think of your family as your family, a whole. Not of them as the legal process that led to them being with you. You don't think of your wife as a marriage certificate. You think of your kids as your kids now they are with you. This is all these guys were doing, trying to give each other safety and security.

As mentioned earlier, this system exists to allow inheritance to be correctly routed as well, it's not all about the age/relationship.