Real-life Brokeback Mountain, but without the "happy" ending...

[Harry Tuttle]

Actually Imran's right Asher. The same sad story goes for many heterosexual couples. That's why we all need to learn about a survivorship deed and proper will making.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
You don't have to be an expert to see what Christian legislated morals can do to civil liberties.

How about trimming your broad brush down to size from "America as a whole . . . ." to the people actually guilty -- "Christian fundamentalists and their political allies . . . . ."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Actually Imran's right Asher. The same sad story goes for many heterosexual couples. That's why we all need to learn about a survivorship deed and proper will making.

Err...correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Christian right frown upon "Commonlaw Marriages" as well as domestic partnerships...

That doesn't change my comment.

[mrmitchell]

Asher can't you go jerk off thinking about CPUs?

[Harry Tuttle]

Yeah so do a lot of people. I'm just keeping on the topic of the thread instead of deluding it in fundie technobabble.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's no surprise that the law can be cruel and uncaring. It's nice to see that the people these guys lived around weren't like that, though...

Most of their friends, Beaumont said, were straight couples, women who worked at Black & Decker, "teachers and doctors and lawyers," and childhood friends of Meadows who often came to dinner at the ranch.

"People treated them fine," said Eunice Lawson, who runs a grocery store in Bristow.

[Asher]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Asher can't you go jerk off thinking about CPUs?

Christian hater.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
God that sucks. I hope the cousins die in some terrible tractor accident.

No, no, Thresher accident.

[KrazyHorse]

Agreed. Greedy ****ing *****es.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by MrFun



My point is that your thread title implies that in contrast to the real story you posted, Brokeback Mountain, the film, has a happy ending.

I have yet to see it, but the friends of mine who have seen it said that it's a tragedy movie -- not a "everyone-lives-happily-ever-after" movie, as your thread title seems to imply.

Do you have a gene in your DNA that prevents you from consistently seeing quotation marks outside of written dialouge? Apparently not, given you used them in your post above the same way I used them in the thread title. I say "happy" ending in a sarcastic way, meaning it wasn't a very happy ending, and this real-life story is even less happy than that. Boy howdy, stop being so... Mr. Fun-like.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's no surprise that the law can be cruel and uncaring. It's nice to see that the people these guys lived around weren't like that, though...

But it wasn't the law that decided, it was the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, more specifically a single judge that decided. If the law had decided this wouldn't have gone to court nor would we necessarrily be hearing about this. Given this came before a judge, it is well-within a judge's authority to settle a matter like this more fairly. This judge, without batting an eye, decided to tell Sam to piss-away his memories and life of 25 years with his partner. Then the cousins, like vultures, decided they wanted more than years of his life and thousands upon thousands of his hard-earned money: They want backrent.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Legislature makes law, the Executive executes law, and the Judiciary interprets law.

[Drake Tungsten]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Legislature makes law, the Executive executes law, and the Judiciary interprets law.

You want the judge to "interpret" the law so that, in this particular case, a will didn't have to be filled out correctly? I can't say I blame him for doing his job...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Legislature makes law, the Executive executes law, and the Judiciary interprets law.

You want the judge to "interpret" the law so that, in this particular case, a will didn't have to be filled out correctly? I can't say I blame him for doing his job...

As I already said, he had well-within his authority the power to come to a fair settlement. I never said he should go ahead and honor the incomplete will. He could have scrapped it and helped the parties come to a different agreement, one that took into consideration the fact that Sam Beaumont was the intended sole heir of Earl Meadows' estate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


As I already said, he had well-within his authority the power to come to a fair settlement. I never said he should go ahead and honor the incomplete will. He could have scrapped it and helped the parties come to a different agreement, one that took into consideration the fact that Sam Beaumont was the intended sole heir of Earl Meadows' estate.

Without a valid will the judge's hands are tied. He's obligated to disburse the estate according to existing laws regarding next-of-kin in the absence of a will. I mean, he could have said: "I don't care what the law says; I'm giving everything to Sam because that's what Earl wanted". He'd just be reversed on appeal almost immediately.

[KrazyHorse]

The cousins didn't have to accept anything less than lock, stock & barrel. They're holding all the cards.