Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering how the bigots here would feel if the father's son had been straight, and said that his son could only receive the inheritance if he marries a man and adopts a child with his new husband.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
The father was being cruel to both his son and his grandchild. Fortunately, a probate judge will make the final decision - not the mean-spirited, dimwitted homophobes on this forum.
Great example of a hateful parent. And all of you who support the father are hateful too.
First of all, NO ONE said anything on this thread to justify the type of hate you posted here, but how is this any different than the government taxing oes inheritance saying your newly found wealth isnt yours, and thus its not double taxation? The man died FIVE YEARS AGO, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate the man knew his son was gay. Even the child is only 16 months old.
Explain to me why the government should be able to tax this money, but the guy giving it, cant establish rules on who gets it, considering it was HIS money..
Furthermore, what would change if he was straight, and unmarried? He STILL wouldnt be getting the money..
If the father truly didn't approve of his son's homosexuality and didn't want him to have any money, he could have at least put the money in a trust for his grandchild, rather than punish both his son and his grandchild.
Anyone who punishes their grandchild for a parent's homosexuality is just cold-hearted scum.
Stop, what part of the story says the father even know his son was homosexual?
Stop, what part of the story says the father even know his son was homosexual?
Yeah. You're right. The guy is a judge who has no problem with his personal story being published in the New York Post, he has a biological child with a surrogate mother, and MARRIED his partner.
Yeah. NOBODY told old bigot gramps that the son was gay!
As commented before:
But hey, if it means that much... divorce the current husband, marry the surrogate, and when the cash clears the bank, divorce the woman and remarry the husband! Split the cash with the surrogate, and pull one over on the old fossil.
Yeah. You're right. The guy is a judge who has no problem with his personal story being published in the New York Post, he has a biological child with a surrogate mother, and MARRIED his partner.
Yeah. NOBODY told old bigot gramps that the son was gay!
As commented before:
But hey, if it means that much... divorce the current husband, marry the surrogate, and when the cash clears the bank, divorce the woman and remarry the husband! Split the cash with the surrogate, and pull one over on the old fossil.
The man died over FIVE YEARS AGO.. How do you tell someone who's DEAD their sons gay?
First of all, NO ONE said anything on this thread to justify the type of hate you posted here, but how is this any different than the government taxing oes inheritance saying your newly found wealth isnt yours, and thus its not double taxation? The man died FIVE YEARS AGO, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate the man knew his son was gay. Even the child is only 16 months old.
In his court filing, Robert stated his father very well knew he was gay and that Robert's husband (then boyfriend) regularly attended family functions and vacations going back many years.
Quote:
Furthermore, what would change if he was straight, and unmarried? He STILL wouldnt be getting the money..
Yes he (and by he I mean the grandchild, not Robert) would. The will specifically defines "grandchild" and "descendant" to include natural and adopted children and even children born out of wedlock - except for Robert. It singles out Robert by saying:
"However, such words shall specifically not include an adopted child of Robert, if adopted while Robert is a single person, or a biological child of Robert, if Robert shall not be married to the child's mother within six months of the child's birth"
In his court filing, Robert stated his father very well knew he was gay
Thats hearsay and not admissible in court
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
and that Robert's husband (then boyfriend" regularly attending family functions and vacations going back many years.
So? I take my kids friends with me all the time on family functions and vacations, I guess that means I'm a pedophile..
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Yes he (and by he I mean the grandchild, not Robert) would. The will specifically defines "grandchild" and "descendant" to include natural and adopted children and even children born out of wedlock - except from Robert. It singles out Robert by saying:
"However, such words shall specifically not include an adopted child of Robert, if adopted while Robert is a single person, or a biological child of Robert, if Robert shall not be married to the child's mother within six months of the child's birth"
Natural and adopted children are not any different under the law and not an issue. The issue is MARRIAGE, and he's perfectly within his limit to say that his children must be married prior to receiving an estate because its HIS money. We hear this non stop from left wing kooks who justify taxing the estates as "new wealth".
If he was straight and his father left such a stipulation, I bet you'd be defending it.
It's what.... 1/3 of 180k? That he put in TRUST for his very much adult children? Talk about micromanaging from the grave. I could see if it was 18 million!
What he did was set up his estate for protracted litigation that will drain the assets of the estate.
If a person is DEAD, there's an exception to the hearsay exclusion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Natural and adopted children are not any different under the law and not an issue. The issue is MARRIAGE, and he's perfectly within his limit to say that his children must be married prior to receiving an estate because its HIS money. We hear this non stop from left wing kooks who justify taxing the estates as "new wealth".
If he was straight and his father left such a stipulation, I bet you'd be defending it.
WRONG. Because he would STILL be making his gift contingent upon the wishes of ANOTHER PERSON NOT INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE! The MOTHER (whoever that is) cannot be FORCED into a sham marriage!
Who IS the mother of the child in this or any other situation? Was she a surrogate who had another woman's eggs transplanted into her womb? If so, she's not really the "mother," is she? Can they identify whose eggs were used? THat would be the technical mother, no?
Last edited by TriMT7; 08-21-2012 at 07:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
