I'm sure that in legal circles, there are a whole host of similar "law hacking" examples. This seems like a particular ingenious approach. I'd be interested to learn about other circumstances where laws are creatively misused to achieve noble ends. (The examples where the law is misused for nefarious ends are too numerous to mention).
Of course, these are ends that are only now being seen as noble instead of nefarious. It was necessary because same-sex relationships were viewed as deviant and sinister for so long.
What's an interesting question is why this was so widely accepted and tolerated by judges/social workers, in an era where same-sex relationships were otherwise treated so punitively.
> when the couple petitioned Allegheny County Judge Lawrence O’Toole to dissolve the adoption this summer, he ruled the state’s adoption law didn’t allow him to do so.
That's just sad, and they only just went the adoption route 2 years before same-sex marriage was legalised.
This makes very clear the practical benefits of same-sex marriage and the real impact it has on people's lives.
Whenever I encounter people being dismissive of same-sex marriage because it's just symbolic/a distraction/etc., these are the kind of examples I give to show how wrong they are.
I imagine this would be quite the headtrip for a lot of people to deal with:
Adult adoption by gays and lesbians has only been quietly discussed, both in or outside the gay community, for fairly obvious reasons; there isn’t an easy way to tell your friends and family that the man or woman with whom you share a bed is, legally, your son or father, or your daughter or mother.
The article doesn't mention adult adoption in Japan at all, which is strange. Japanese adult adoption (a centuries long-standing practice) was covered in the US news and HN in the past year.
That's different though, that's done in order to "continue" the family line when there is no male heir to inherit a going concern, so while very interesting in its own way it's to address a different social pressure.
The article is about LGBT adoptions for romantic purposes, as a legal replacement to unavailable legal unions. Japanese "son-in-law adoption" (mukoyōshi) is a question of business capability and name (brand) preservation, not a way to bypass a lack of legal protection in a romantic pairing.
Not that long ago people tried to argue that marriage equality wasn't needed to protect basic rights of individuals involved. They just needed to use contracts/adoption/etc.
This is a great article to remind us how bogus that argument was.
> This is a great article to remind us how bogus that argument was.
I'm not sure what you mean. At no point does it indicate that the adoption tactic ever failed; in fact, the article seems to be at pains to show that adoption routinely and reliably secured most or all of the rights that marriage would have, and swapping adoption for marriage now is little more than a change of paperwork. Based on this article, you would have to say that marriage equality wasn't needed to secure the basic rights like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.
Why is this article on hacker news? What does it have to do with this community? I am just wondering how it fits in to the vision of what HN is supposed to be. Or do I not understand what it is?
[+] [-] DavidAdams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panglott|10 years ago|reply
What's an interesting question is why this was so widely accepted and tolerated by judges/social workers, in an era where same-sex relationships were otherwise treated so punitively.
[+] [-] saint_fiasco|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LordKano|10 years ago|reply
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/north/2015/10/09/Fox-Chape...
[+] [-] masklinn|10 years ago|reply
> when the couple petitioned Allegheny County Judge Lawrence O’Toole to dissolve the adoption this summer, he ruled the state’s adoption law didn’t allow him to do so.
That's just sad, and they only just went the adoption route 2 years before same-sex marriage was legalised.
[+] [-] yarrel|10 years ago|reply
Whenever I encounter people being dismissive of same-sex marriage because it's just symbolic/a distraction/etc., these are the kind of examples I give to show how wrong they are.
[+] [-] Mz|10 years ago|reply
Adult adoption by gays and lesbians has only been quietly discussed, both in or outside the gay community, for fairly obvious reasons; there isn’t an easy way to tell your friends and family that the man or woman with whom you share a bed is, legally, your son or father, or your daughter or mother.
I am glad we legalized gay marriage.
[+] [-] gohrt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|10 years ago|reply
Still, yes, very interesting.
[+] [-] masklinn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewWilkes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GeorgeOrr|10 years ago|reply
This is a great article to remind us how bogus that argument was.
[+] [-] gwern|10 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what you mean. At no point does it indicate that the adoption tactic ever failed; in fact, the article seems to be at pains to show that adoption routinely and reliably secured most or all of the rights that marriage would have, and swapping adoption for marriage now is little more than a change of paperwork. Based on this article, you would have to say that marriage equality wasn't needed to secure the basic rights like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.
[+] [-] antillean|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfortuny|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ethanpil|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply