Hmm, Is This Considered Incest … Gay 65 Year Old Man Adopts His 73 Year Old Partner as His Son to Avoid High Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax
Just curious, why isn’t the following considered incest?
Here is one way for Gays to circumvent the law, adopt your partner as your son. A 65 year old man has adopted his 75 year old partner of 44 years as his son in order to avoid the high Pennsylvania inheritance tax. Pennsylvania only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman and presently has no provisions for civil unions. So in order to avoid the 15% death tax if either was to pass, the younger John adopted his 75 year old partner as his son. With the adoption, they can now will each other their assets with only a 4% tax. Huh, imagine that, the dad is 10 years younger than his son. The reason why the younger man adopted the older was because the older mans father was still alive. You can’t have two primary fathers, now that would be just wrong, wouldn’t it. (sarcasm intended)
A man in Pennsylvania has adopted his partner of 44 years to circumvent high property taxes that would be imposed on either of the men if the other dies.
John, 65, and his partner Gregory*, 75, made the decision to become father and son to avoid a 15 per cent tax on any property and assets willed to one if the other should die – a much higher tax than married spouses or family members are required to pay.
The state of Pennsylvania, where the men reside, recognizes marriage as being only between a man and a woman and has no provision for civil unions at this time.
Wait a minute, so the gay lovers are now father and son and cohabiting is a sexual relationship? Isn’t that the definition of incest? From how the story reads, the judge who resided over the adoption knew that the two were gay and even asked what was the purpose of the adoption. Thus, the judge knew the soon to be father and son were lovers and cared less. Sorry, but according to the law what these two are now doing breaks the incest law in the Keystone state. Isn’t it just amazing how have a legal system that overlooks the laws on the books for some, but not for others.
§ 4302. Incest.
A person is guilty of incest, a felony of the second degree,
if that person knowingly marries or cohabits or has sexual
intercourse with an ancestor or descendant, a brother or sister
of the whole or half blood or an uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of
the whole blood. The relationships referred to in this section
include blood relationships without regard to legitimacy, and
relationship of parent and child by adoption.
(Nov. 17, 1989, P.L.592, No.64, eff. 60 days; Mar. 31, 1995, 1st
Sp.Sess., P.L.985, No.10, eff. 60 days)
Another question that needs to be asked, how many people get denied adaption who are doing it for noble reason, not to circumvent the law? Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the courts would allow a fraud to be perpetrated? The intent of adoption is not to circumvent the law. So if gays can’t get married, they just adopt each other? Huh. Although it would appear that this judge had no issue in granting the adoptions as he was told the truth as to why it was occurring.
The couple’s lawyer told the couple that they wouldn’t be required to tell the judge their sexual orientation or the nature of their relationship, but John worried the judge would ask, and he’d have to tell the truth under oath.
The judge, as it happened, did ask. ‘He said, “I am really curious, why are you adopting [Gregory]?”‘
‘I said, “Because it’s our only legal option to protect ourselves from Pennsylvania’s inheritance taxes,” said John. ‘He got it immediately.’
After signing the papers, the judge turned to John and said, ‘Congratulations, it’s a boy.’
How in the did a judge allow an adoption to go forward that would allow incest to occur and basically make a joke out of it? What would happen if a man and a woman did the same thing and were lovers? Would it be looked upon so favorably be the law?