A rare legal case in Maine is shedding an interesting light on questions of same-sex relationship recognition. Olive F. Watson had legally adopted her partner, Patricia A. Spado, in 1991, in order to ensure her financial security. Watson is daughter of former IBM CEO Thomas J. Watson, Jr., and granddaughter of the company’s founder, Thomas J. Watson, Sr. The couple split a year later. The case has resurfaced because Spado claims to have a legal right to a share of the multimillion-dollar trust fund established by Olive Watson’s now-deceased mother for her grandchildren. The Boston Globe (through the Associated Press) has further details.
Regardless of the legal intricacies of this case, it underscores once again the lengths same-sex couples have to go to—and will go to—to secure our rights. Is letting people bend the intended reason for adoption really any better than letting same-sex couples marry? Is it worth the time and legal expense of dragging cases like this through the courts, when the established laws of marriage lay out in great detail matters of inheritance and other rights? You know my answer.
Yet another dramatic illustration of why same sex marriage is essential.
As long as we keep trying to jerryrig our relationships into nonsensical legal categories, like adoption and convoluted contracts for probably bogus consideration, we will have these kinds of unintended and unfair outcomes — that may be perfectly legally valid. In a twisted way, I’m almost rooting for Spado, if only to make this point both clear and high-profile.
Had Spado and Watson been able to legally marry, when they split up, there would have been a clear body of law governing the distribution of their marital assets. While they might have had a legitimate fight over the amount of IBM family fortune to which Spado was entitled, the legal fight would have made sense and not involved anyone feeling as though the former spouse was trying to perpetrate a fraud.