At the risk of boring, I'll repeat myself.

A valid, legal marriage didn't keep Anna Nicole from losing everything her husband willed to her. His children sued and got the will vacated.

Try again.

brian, you're not boring, but you are only tangentially addressing this - by citing an exception. How many marriages are February-December 30th, where it is apparent, though initially legally irrelevent, that the girl has super powers to confuse men of all ages and herself on occasion? If Miss Hathaway (Beverly Hillbillies) had been the widow, there might not have even been a suit, much less a public spectacle.

Instead, I'll use this thread to point something else out:

Many of you have said "the State should not be involved in marriage", as if that automatically makes problems like this go away.

It doesn't.

The State has a claim on the estate through taxation at all times. Absent a will, probate has a standard procedure establishing inheritance. With a will, the courts have ways to determine if it is valid and suits society - the part everybody forgets is that the State is still at the table. That's what takes years.

In your own case, a marriage certificate means "all is well", and that inheritance of property acquired together will occur in known ways satisfactory to everybody, but particularly to the State. Challenges are rarer due to custom and the influence of family on the preceding union, not because the inheritors are the best people on Earth.

Well, I think this is another example of why marriage should be a matter of private contract law, and the government should (with the exception of resolving disputes) butt out. And personally, I think the same should be true of wills. With very few exceptions (e.g., I shouldn't be able to cut my spouse out of my will), whatever I put in my will should be the final word. There should be no grounds for someone to challenge my will just because they're a second-cousin-once-removed or whatever.

"With very few exceptions (e.g., I shouldn't be able to cut my spouse out of my will), whatever I put in my will should be the final word."

Uhhh, that's the case now.

If you want something different, show how it's cheaper and easier for the State, which is operating to make sure that property is inherited properly.

And your last sentence begs for relief in a way that will automatically prevent you from seeking restitution.

Right now, if you have standing, you can sue. If not, you can't. How simple is that?

Why is that when people propose legal changes, they never imagine it would apply to them?

I would be more receptive to homosexual marriage, were it not for stuff like this happening in the wake of such laws being passed.

The tone of the article is dead set against the B&B owners, but nonetheless, should they be forced to host a civil union ceremony in their private establishments, if they are conscientiously against doing so?

This sounds like a lawyer was not doing a good job or New York law is a much different than I am familiar with.

In the rules I am familiar with (and I am not a lawyer so not intimately knowledgeable about them) you can name anyone you want. Thus, Mr. Ranftle could name easily name his partner Mr. Leiby. Then only a dependent or legal child (bio or adopted) or legal spouse would have a significant chance of successfully challenging the will.

The challenge sounds to be that the will declared Mr. Leiby as the surviving spouse, but Mr. Leiby is not the spouse legally therefore the will was in err and meaningless. The same as if it had a made up name. Why would a lawyer writing up the will put the surviving spouse part in?

Mpetrie98 confuses different sets of laws. He, or she, says he would be more receptive to allow gays to marry if It "were not for stuff like this happening in the wake of such laws being passed." He refers to the inn in Britain that was told it can't exclude gay people from staying there.

First, England does NOT yet allow gay marriage so the case didn't happend "in the wake of such laws being passed." Second, the law under which the case was being prosecuted is now being used against gay hotels for excluding straight people.

The law in question is an anti-discrimination law and it has NO relationship to whether gay marriage is legal or not. Pretending it does has been a tactic used by the Right to delegitimize the need for marriage equality. For the record, I oppose anti-discrimination laws and support marriage equality. And I'm smart enough not to confuse the two, intentionally or unintentionally.

Nope.
The problem was with self-righteously trying to impose the gay agenda by referring to Leiby as a spouse.

If he'd just been named as sole beneficiary, that would have been the end of the story.

Nice try, though.

We also know that such committed couples are the exception rather than the rule in the gay "community".

If Ranftle and Leiby were typical, their relationship was open to many, many other pals and partners. Maybe one of them should sue for their share, as well?

"We also know that such committed couples are the exception rather than the rule in the gay "community"."

LOL. Which is why that should be denied, right?

"If Ranftle and Leiby were typical, their relationship was open to many, many other pals and partners. Maybe one of them should sue for their share, as well?"

They already can. Clearly, you do not know about US law. It's commonly known as a "palimony" case.

Well, no. I bet you know, but you're so swollen with the word, "gay" that you can't remember it.

The thing about inheritance in marriage is that there is no taxation. If I were to be married a lady that had millions, and she passed, I would inherit without being taxed.

If she were to try to pass the house, the car, the bank accounts, etc. to me without being married they are taxed.

"I would be more receptive to homosexual marriage, were it not for stuff like this happening in the wake of such laws being passed."

The 'this' that you cite is a matter of discrimination law and doesn't have anything to do with marriage equality just as Classically liberal points out.

"...should they be forced to host a civil union ceremony in their private establishments, if they are conscientiously against doing so?"

It's not exactly a private establishment, it's a business that's open to the public. If this couple called the Baker Family that lives on Elm street and demanded that their living room be used for their ceremony, that would be a better example of a private establishment and the Baker Family would have every right to say no.

I know that people on the right really, really hate it when the cause of gay civil rights is compared to black civil rights.

I apologize in advance for the use of backward and offensive terms. I'll be using them because I think it is valuable to put the argument into Historical context as well as to illustrate just how silly such an argument sounds today. As a further disclaimer, I'm not at all accusing mpetrie98 of using similarly backward or offensive language. Here goes:

Should a lunch counter operator be forced to welcome a colored into his private establishment, even if he is conscientiously against doing so?

There are perfectly logical arguments in favor of our humble lunch counter operator.

- Perhaps he will lose a valuable customer base as his white customers object to sharing a meal in proximity of a negro.

- He has reasons for his objections based on his understanding of Biblical teachings. What of his religious freedoms?

- His is a privately owned business and, therefore, whom he serves should be his prerogative.

Moving back to present time, let's suppose this B&B operator doesn't like the idea of inter-racial marriages. Is this okay? After all, there are a lot of toothless people running around in the hills who are still against that. Should he be able to conscientiously object and refuse the business of such a couple?

There is a very libertarian, ideological logic to arguments against anti-discrimination laws which do make intellectual sense. I understand that when Rand Paul got into trouble over exactly this lunch counter argument, he wasn't revealing himself as a racist. He was, however, revealing himself as a fierce ideologue that lives in an intellectual reality that doesn't take into account the actual reality of bigotry and injustice.

I am for anti-discrimination laws because I want to live in a country where our higher ideals of equality for all are not trumped by the stupidity of bigots.

Well, whistleDcik, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

These laws sprang up to counteract Jim Crowe laws. Even if businesses wanted to desegrigate lunch counters they were legally barred from doing so.

Personally I have no problem with any business or organization using tax moneies being required to obey state and national anti dicrimination laws; things like private religious schools and hospitals which receive some of their funding from the fed or state.

When we get to private businesses I start to have a problem. Forcing people who want to be bigots to cater to those they want to discriminate against only serves to justify the bigots hatred.

People should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in thier private and business lives - and others should likewise feel free to tell everyone of the deplorable treatment they receied and do everything within the bounds of the law to retaliate against those businesses which do discriminate.

Now if this particular assemly hall mpetrie98 get a property tax deferal or waiver because the local government is bribing them to stay in the area then as recipients of government handouts they should be held to the legal threshold of government services, if they are not however they should feel free to discriminate, and those offended by their actions are free to protest said actions

Actually, the B&B lawsuit is taking place in Illinois.

Incidentally, I have no problem with a gay-owned B&B refusing to host straight weddings, either.