> On Apr 9, 10:58?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > > On Apr 9, 4:57?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > > > > On Apr 9, 1:42?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > > > > > > On Apr 9, 9:18?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > > > > > > > Bear with me for a second
> > > > > > > > Gay marriage is a fait accompli - might take a little time still, but
> > > > > > > > it's done and in the books. ?Cool beans - glad it's happening finally.
> > > > > > > > And one of the compelling arguments re gay marriage was equal
> > > > > > > > protection under laws of survivorship - now a gay can pass on his/her
> > > > > > > > estate to their partner w/o legal ramifications - just like a regular
> > > > > > > > marriage enjoys. ?Cool.
> > > > > > > > But - wtf does this have to do with '***"?
> > > > > > > > Well - consider this for a second - what's to prevent a man from
> > > > > > > > marrying his son? ?In fact, you can argue this makes terrific tax
> > > > > > > > planning - avoids estate taxes, etc.
> > > > > > > > but but but but - *** is illegal!!!!
> > > > > > > > For procreative reasons, it is. ?And where there is NO procreative
> > > > > > > > possibility, why should it be "outlawed"? ?Furthermore, where it can
> > > > > > > > be proven the father has had a vasectormy, there's probably a legal
> > > > > > > > case to be made for him marrying his daughter - again, with handy
> > > > > > > > dandy tax benefits re estate planning.
> > > > > > > > The lack of procreative possibility pretty much negates *** laws -
> > > > > > > > you don't have to worry about the whole weirdo genetic bits or
> > > > > > > > whatnot.
> > > > > > > > Just something to think about on a rainy Tuesday morning.
> > > > > > > Marriages that are solely for the purpose of defrauding someone or
> > > > > > > government agency are null and void on their face--so-called "green
> > > > > > > card" marriages can be annulled by the state if they can show that was
> > > > > > > the purpose.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > hahahahahaha - try that with a paternity suit
> > > > > Paternity/=marriage- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > men get married under false pretenses - and even if the kids isn't
> > > > theirs, thus invalidating the purpose of the marriage, they're on the
> > > > hook in the eyes of the law.
> > > That usually depends on the circumstances and the length of the
> > > marriage. ?Courts generally look to the interests of the children--if
> > > a guy finds out years later that a kid isn't his biological child and
> > > seeks to leave, courts will generally award support--it's not the
> > > kid's fault, and the "father" was in a superior position to find out
> > > the truth, at least goes the reasoning. ?If you found out shortly
> > > after the marriage that the kid wasn't yours and tried to get the
> > > marriage annulled, that would probably work, provided you hadn't lived
> > > with the mother and kid for any length of time.
> > Deliberate fraud should have no statue of limitations tho, right?
> > That's really what you're saying here - that the fraud is okay and
> > legally binding if the father acts in "good faith"....
> Not at all. ?Your thinking is pretty mushy here.
> A marriage contract is not to be taken lightly, and the parties have a
> duty to ensure their interests are protected.
?As long as the fraud is
> discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?
> And how do you *prove* the father didn't know the child wasn't his at
> the time of the marriage and later used it as a ruse to avoid support
Reasonable question - otoh, there's also reasobable assumption of
paternity in situations like this
> Remember. the first item on the court's checklist is the welfare of
> the child--everything else is subsumed to that.
Hah - that's a pandora's box in and of itself. Studies have
repeatedly shown that children of divorced parents are more likely to
do worse in school, get pregnant and engage in *** and drinking at
higher rates than kids of married parents. By this logic, divorce
should be restricted due to the welfare of the children involved.
?So if a child becomes
> emotionally and financially dependent on its "father", we don't punish
> the child. ?While the "father" will focus his hatred onto the scheming
> *** who tricked him (or not), the court does not--they only think
> about the welfare of the child.
See above and apply to no-fault laws. Furthermore, would even
***ery b/c grounds for divorce? What if it's the father who cheats
- can the mom divorce him? Again, the stats are compelling vis a vis
the children to have married parents....
> As for your idea that fraud should have no SOL, well that's
> nonsensical if you really think hard about it, and here's why: ?unlike
> ***, which is universally the only crime that has no SOL, the state
> doesn't have the resources or the will to investigate every possible
> case of fraud. ?Over time, witnesses die, memories fade, motivations
> change, so at a point you just have to accept the current situation as
> something both parties agreed to.
I'm not talking about investigating fraud on an ongoing basis - merely
that sometimes it takes a long time for fraud to uncover itself - such
as situations as we're discussing.
> For every case where a woman tricked a man into marrying him when she
> got pregnant by another person, there are cases where the man knew
> what he was getting into and married her anyway, as well as cases
> where the woman was sleeping with multiple partners (including the
> father) and simply didn't know. ?So the court looks at who was in
> position to avoid the harm, and it's never the child, so they won't
> punish the child--it leads to some patently unfair outcomes, but life
> sucks sometimes. ?It's a cautionary tale you might want to share with
> your sons if you have any
Absolutely life is unfair.
I appreciate the need for the "welfare of the child" - I also
appreciate the desire to not punish people for legal activities they
didn't do or were defrauded into doing.