The beginning of the article talks about how there were some homosexual couples that turned to adoption to get around the courts. In a relationship one of the people in the relationship would adopt the other one so that they could have more rights. With the adoption both people could get all the same benefits that a married couple could get. Adoption was the closest thing to marriage that gay couples could have. (Terkel)
The writer of the article talks about two men who chose adoption to allow them to have more rights than other homosexual couples. When they were rewriting their wills they wanted to leave their inheritance to each other, but due to the fact that the inheritance tax would be significantly steeper they turned to adoption. The two men recently wanted to annul the adoption and get married. The court judge that as assigned to the couples case said that he couldn’t move forward with the annulment due to adoption law. He said that courts usually reverse adoptions in cases of fraud, but he was going to get direction from higher courts. The two men are still waiting to get the annulment so they can get married.
In the article Terkel talks about a homosexual couple that like many others is trying to get their adoption annulled so they can legally get married. The only thing standing in their way
…show more content…
If other adoptions are being annulled then this one should be no different. I do believe that the men should have to take a punishment for committing fraud as well as all the other couples. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with committing fraud. When I was researching adoption fraud, I learned that no matter what the reason, if fraud was discovered an adoption could be annulled (Akhbari). So I really don’t see why the judge that was presiding over their case couldn’t annul their