Gay man challenges deceased father’s will


A Manhattan man, employed as a judge, no less, is contesting his late father’s will because he feels its obligation that he marry the mother of his child is unreasonable.

The crux of the case is that the man, whose wealthy father died in 2007, used a surrogate mother to conceive a child and, shortly thereafter, married his longtime same-sex partner. According to his father’s will, he is to be excluded from any inheritance unless he marries the mother of his child within six months.

This constituted an outrage in the man’s mind, and he contended the will should be invalid since it could “induce the beneficiary to enter into a sham marriage”, as his court petition states.

But isn’t the purpose of a will to make sure an individual decides exactly how his or her estate is divided up? Another Manhattan lawyer, one with extensive estate planning experience, sure seems to think so.

Though a court might find it “repugnant”, he said a person has every right to dictate under what circumstances heirs can receive their inheritances.

The disgruntled son made a few threadbare arguments in his petition in an attempt to reverse his father’s last wishes. He contended his ‘husband’ could reasonably be considered his son’s mother, in a gender-bending exercise in confusion. He also stated that excluding his son, the deceased man’s biological grandson, would amount to discrimination against homosexuals.

No one can speculate why the father put this particular restriction in his will. Maybe he realized children do better in life with a mother and father than when raised by a gay couple. Possibly, along with more than half of Americans, he felt homosexuality is sinful and was concerned about his son’s soul. A lump sum of money is a pretty good incentive to give the straight life a shot.

The petition, however, alleges he had no problems with his son’s alternative lifestyle.

In reality, the deceased man’s motivation is irrelevant. It was his money, and, as a businessman, one would assume he worked hard for what he earned (with the exception of Barack Obama, who would say he didn’t build it), and should be entitled to bequeath his possessions in a manner of his choice.

If this homosexual judge is so concerned about providing for his son, as the petition states, maybe he should think about working hard himself to achieve the same success as his late father instead of expecting a payday he didn’t earn. Of course, with more Americans than ever before collecting welfare, unearned paydays are quickly becoming the norm while earners have less claim to their money than takers. This should scare all responsible Americans.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Follow him on Twitter @bcagee.



The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.


Let us know what you think!