| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:58 pm: |     |
This came from a colleague of mine.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Assume Ohio passes/signs this new "defense of marriage" act and
Massachusetts starts issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Assume Andy marries Bill in Massachusetts. They split up and Andy moves
to Ohio, where he marries Carol. Is Andy a bigamist?
Assume Andy then dies without leaving a will, but having quite a bit in
assets. Who gets them? Consider the following possibilities:
1) Bill still lives in Massachusetts, and Carol still lives in Ohio.
2) Bill still lives in Massachusetts, and Carol has moved to Massachusetts.
3) Bill has moved to New Jersey (which recognizes other states' domestic
partnerships), and Carol still lives in Ohio.
4) Bill has moved to Ohio and Carol has moved to New Jersey.
5) Other permutations are left as an exercise to the reader.
Does it make a difference in #1 if the assets are held in a bank or real
estate in Massachusetts rather than in Ohio? What if they're in a third
state? What if Andy has moved back to Massachusetts before dying? Or
to New Jersey?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2332
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
The way to deal with this is to consider that Andy is one very dead big-a-mist-ake, and it's best for your colleague to let him rest in peace. |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 186
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
If Bill and Carol take a plane trip to Canada, and the plane crashes on the Canada/US border, which country do they bury the survivors in? |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
you dont bury the survivors for gods sake
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 187
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Tough to get anything past you, eh Duncan? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 276
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
otd
this is proof that Duncan is the board's mensa mole |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 104
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
I'll take a stab at this.
The sexes of the parties involved, or the fact that same-sex marriage is specified, are red herrings. The answer is "not enough information" due to the vagueness of the term "split up." If "split up" = "divorced," then no bigamy. If not divorced, yes, bigamy, but the sex of the parties remains irrelevant, because it would be bigamy also if the original couple in question (in Mass) were heterosexual.
The rest of the question is entirely dependent upon the jurisdiction in which Andy had his primary residence when he died. Probate court in that jurisdiction would handle the estate according to the law in that jurisdiction. Identify that jurisdiction, look up its probate laws, and you can imagine all the complex permutations you want and figure out how the probate court in question would manage things.
Of course I guess this puzzle isn't really a puzzle at all, but rather an attempt to make people believe that same sex marriages are going to turn our whole legal system topsy-turvy or something, which is completely ridiculous. If you want to legislate something that enforces the sanctity and permenancy of the institution of marriage, then outlaw divorce. Otherwise cut the crap.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
No crap intended. My colleague is strongly in favor of gay marriage, though she is not gay, and she's married to a man. She's the type who just enjoys looking at all angles for the intellectual sport of it. I think she's implying that things are going to get "interesting" and it's a price worth paying. And I would agree.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Tom,
Well I wasn't necessarily directing the 'crap' comment at you directly, but rather at the perceived purpose of the thing you posted and its anonymous writer. And if I do say so myself, I like the answer it made me come up with!
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page