gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:18:29


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.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:02:24

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:18:29 -0700 (PDT), "The Cheesehusker, Trade

Quote:

>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.

If your son does not have the same genetic defect, would you still
pass the estate to him?

Hugh

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:27:19

On Apr 9, 9:18?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

Quote:

> 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.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:42:17


Quote:
> 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
 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:42:15

On Apr 9, 1:42?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
Quote:


> > 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
 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:57:05


Quote:
> 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.

More seriously tho - the sole purpose of fraud would be interesting to
prove - after all, parents already "love" their children, right?  The
"marriage" merely makes it more official.  The tax consequences are
merely an ancillary benefit.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:52:15

On Apr 9, 4:57?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
Quote:


> > 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.

Your OP talked about inheritance taxes that could be avoided, which
the main gist of my comment.  I think the *** argument is
interesting, if largely hypothetical.  You don't hear about ***uous
couples beating down the doors of the courthouse asking to be married.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:58:22


Quote:
> 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"....

Quote:
> Your OP talked about inheritance taxes that could be avoided, which
> the main gist of my comment. ?I think the *** argument is
> interesting, if largely hypothetical. ?You don't hear about ***uous
> couples beating down the doors of the courthouse asking to be married.- Hide quoted text -

Not yet - if only b/c marriage is, by and large, still defined as A)
between a man and woman and B) largely for procreative reasons.
However, gay marriage negates both clauses necessarily - and since
*** is about avoiding the risk of genetic inbreeding - is not
applicable in cases of gay marriage - or to carry further - if the
father has had a vasectomy - or even if there isn't necessarily ***
congress.

I think we can stipulate that a marriage was largely an entity
recognized by the state and given certain legals "rights"/freedoms/
allowances - survivorship, medical decisioning, etc.  But when the
essence of marriage changes, do these same legal latitudes continue?

The blog post adds an interesting element with polygamy as well -
especially considering that it's existence is widespread and common -
not necessarily here in the US - but in other cultures and certainly
throughout time - much less in nature.  If we allow polygamous
marriage then, are we allowing "clans" for legal purposes?

Conversely, if we say "*** it" - no legal benefits to marriage at all
- that itself opens up many cans of worms for the existing millions of
recognized couples.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Kyle T. Jone » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:10:00


Quote:
> 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"?

This is where your argument breaks down, for me.  Even if I buy your
claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

Cheers.

(*) I know, I know - I'm just not doing it right!

  Furthermore, where it can

Quote:
> 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.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:51:03

On Apr 9, 11:10?pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

Quote:


> > 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"?

> This is where your argument breaks down, for me. ?Even if I buy your
> claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
> can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

> Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

Robbing banks is "marriage" aka a familial grouping between consenting
***s?

But the depositers get ***ed a lot so maybe.......

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:31:07

On Apr 9, 10:58?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
Quote:


> > 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
annullment.

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
payments?

Remember. the first item on the court's checklist is the welfare of
the child--everything else is subsumed to that.  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.

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.

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.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:39:35


Quote:
> 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.

Agreed

 ?As long as the fraud is

Quote:
> discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
> annullment.

Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?

Quote:
> 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
> payments?

Reasonable question - otoh, there's also reasobable assumption of
paternity in situations like this

Quote:
> 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

Quote:
> 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....

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:
> 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.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:28:52

On Apr 10, 8:39?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

Quote:


> > 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.

> Agreed

> ??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
> > annullment.

> Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?

Not if she's trying to scam the guy out of child support or into
marriage, it's not.  Ask any pro athlete about that.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > 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
> > payments?

> 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.

All true, but at a point, the courts can only mitigate the damage to
the kid by allocating money, custody, and visitation.  The whole no-
fault divorce laws were enacted because the party who had more money
usually won.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> ?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.

Just put yourself in the position of the court, where you have people
lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable
midpoint approach.

And here's a little anecdote that is true:  Back in the early '70s, my
brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage.
They were together for about five years, but decided to separate.  The
woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a
drunk driver and was killed.  Under the law at that time, because they
had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's
natural child, he was off the hook financially.  Not that it mattered--
he was pretty poor at the time, anyway, and the grandparents stepped
in and took care of the girl, but had the girl had no living relatives
she could have become a ward of the state and my brother could have
walked away.

While it didn't work out that way--my brother stayed close to the girl
and provided her with as much support as he could, he was *legally*
entitled under the laws at that time to completely bail.  His case is
different in that there was no fraud, but the kid would have suffered
regardless, had my brother been a*** and the circumstances were
different, hence the change in the laws to protect kids.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:32:11


Quote:
> On Apr 10, 8:39?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

> > > discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> > > becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
> > > annullment.

> > Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?

> Not if she's trying to scam the guy out of child support or into
> marriage, it's not. ?Ask any pro athlete about that.

My bad - I meant in terms of the child is immediately dependent on the
parents

Quote:

> > 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.

> All true, but at a point, the courts can only mitigate the damage to
> the kid by allocating money, custody, and visitation. ?The whole no-
> fault divorce laws were enacted because the party who had more money
> usually won.

And it's still not "in favor" of the child.

Quote:
> > > 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.

> Just put yourself in the position of the court, where you have people
> lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable
> midpoint approach.

Indeed

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> And here's a little anecdote that is true: ?Back in the early '70s, my
> brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage.
> They were together for about five years, but decided to separate. ?The
> woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a
> drunk driver and was killed. ?Under the law at that time, because they
> had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's
> natural child, he was off the hook financially. ?Not that it mattered--
> he was pretty poor at the time, anyway, and the grandparents stepped
> in and took care of the girl, but had the girl had no living relatives
> she could have become a ward of the state and my brother could have
> walked away.

> While it didn't work out that way--my brother stayed close to the girl
> and provided her with as much support as he could, he was *legally*
> entitled under the laws at that time to completely bail. ?His case is
> different in that there was no fraud, but the kid would have suffered
> regardless, had my brother been a*** and the circumstances were
> different, hence the change in the laws to protect kids

Your brother sounds like a good man

Good discussion, btw