featured comment" today on a Religion News Service article that included a link to this story about a pair of seventysomething gay men who'd just dissolved their adoption so that they could get married.
The pair has been together for more than 50 years. They moved to Pennsylvania and were working on getting their estate planning. They wanted to minimize tax damage to the eventual surviving spouse, but were told that the state would never approve same-sex marriage. So, under the advise of their attorney, one of them adopted the other. It's not that they considered their relationship to be a father/son relationship. They just needed to create a legal family relationship and this is how they made it work. Now that same-sex marriage is an option in Pennsylvania, they wanted to get married. So they petitioned to dissolve the adoption and are getting married.
Naturally, this link -- without any context outside of a comment that said "It's not what you think!" -- prompted the following responses:
I would have ignored those comments, except that there was no context either in the body of the story or following these comments to explain *why* these men went through with an adoption and why they got married. As it was, it looks like a gay man adopted a kid, seduced him, and then married him.
So I posted the following two comments:
And that's how I got the "Featured Comment" on an RNS article!