Monday, March 19, 2007


The grandaughter of Thomas Watson, founder of IBM adopted her lesbian lover under a Maine law that allows for adult adoption, "broke-up" with her a year later, but by then one of her grandmothers had died leaving a fortune to the "grandkids." The Sapphic Sibling of those grandkids now has a claim on this money.

This will be more complicated than the Anna Nicole Smith intestate situation which went to the Supreme Court on a jurisdictional issue.

I raise this story to delineate why many are so opposed to same-sex "marriage" for reasons having nothing to do with animosity to homosexuals. The iron law of unintended consequences. Here, Maine instituted this law so that aged people without heirs could adopt people that were "like a son" to them, even if they were older the age of 18. A rich lesbian with a good lawyer now imports this law to another state. She is no longer in a relationship with her "daughter" (ooooh) but some California judge now has to sort out a problem neither forseen by the Maine legislators, nor intended by the people of Maine. (This is also another reason states should not allow homosexual stranger adoption).

Once the law has incorporated the principal of polymorphous perversity and that there is no difference between men and women, even in matters of sex and procreation a host of disasters ensue.

The only people who benefit are the lawyers....oh wait.. maybe not disasters!

Now must we have a law that when you adopt the person you are sexually active with the adpotion is annulled upon the ending of the sexual relationship?

Why should this be allowed in adoption at all? Some would say this why we need same-sex marriage but nothing prevented the lesbian IBM heiress from putting her paramour in her own will, nor indeed from entereing a civil union in the states (like California) that recognize them, or indeed Massachusetts.


LAM said...

This matter has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Why do you paint it otherwise?

jjv said...

Because of the unintended consequences of changing traditional familial structures, LAM. The homosexual battle cry is "love makes a family." The colorary is that when love ceases family ceases. As Johnny Cash taught in the gender bending "A Boy Named Sue" this is not true of real families.

LAM said...

This story has nothing to do with traditional familial structures, homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. The grandparents' bequest is would be equally "offended" by a heterosexual recipient. These are just poorly written laws; no moral crisis. But you guys will continue to disingenuously flog this kind of stuff to advance your agenda.

Dave S. said...

No, wait, I want to hear more about the epidemic of homosexual stranger adoption!

However, "A Boy Named Sue" is not even remotely gender-bending and I am shocked that JJV wrote that given his solid Cash credentials.

LAM said...

Nope, need to kill this entry. That motto feeds me. Once word or JJV's post gets out, lord only knows what will happen to the stock.

Dave S. said...

Talk about unintended consequences.

Hopefully no one will do a Google search on "Thomas Watson lesbian paramour." In the meantime, you might want to invest in some nice quality paper and send the suit to the drycleaner.

Anonymous said...

Having been through the probate system as the Administrator of an estate, I can testify from personal experiences that unintended consequences rule, no matter what the family structure.

Unsurprisingly, I would point this up as being a silly result that flows from the prohibition against marital relationships between people. If the granddaughter had been allowed to marry her beloved, then have the wedding annulled/dissolved at the appropriate time, there would be no issue here.

And yes, that's a law pun. Sue me :)

Given the damage that hets do to the institution of marriage, I have yet to hear a rational argument for why they think letting the gays have a chance would make things worse.

John C.

RET said...

This post is purely nonsensical drivel and I'm appalled at the irrational Johnny Cash reference. If all people could marry we wouldn't have people using other less appropriate laws in order to try and legally protect a relationship. Perhaps the IBM heiress did the adoption so her lover could visit her in the intensive care unit if that occasion ever arose. I don't know what is so great about marriage that straight people want to keep it all for themselves anyway...