Gay Cowboy Loses Everything When His Partner Dies

[NATO AIR]

this is where I can agree with and support the arguments of homosexuals who want a "civil union". I don't want them married, but for pete's sake they do need to be able to have some sort of legal rights.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342

December 31, 2005

Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law

By Jessie Torrisi
Columbia News Service
On the face of it, Sam Beaumont, 61, with his cowboy hat, deep-throated chuckle and Northwestern drawl, is not so different from the ranch hands in Ang Lee's critically acclaimed film "Brokeback Mountain," which opened in Indianapolis on Wednesday.

More "Romeo & Juliet" than "Rent," "Brokeback Mountain" challenges modern perceptions of what it means to be gay in rural America.
"Listen," the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. "I'm thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together -- little cow and calf operation, your horses -- it'd be some sweet life."
That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. "I was raised to be independent. I didn't really care what other people thought," Beaumont said.
In 1977, Beaumont was divorced and raising three sons after a dozen years in the Air Force when Meadows walked up to him near the Arkansas River.
"It was a pretty day -- January 15th, 65 degrees," Beaumont said. "He came up, we got to talkin' till 2 in the morning. I don't even remember what we said." But "I knew it was something special."
Beaumont moved to be with Meadows in his partner's hometown of Bristow, Okla., a place of 4,300 people. Together, they bought a ranch and raised Beaumont's three sons. The mortgage and most of the couple's possessions were put in Meadows' name.
"I had two dads"

During the day, Meadows worked as a comptroller for Black & Decker. He'd drop the boys at school on his way to work. At home, Beaumont took care of the ranch, feeding and tagging cattle, cooking and cleaning, and once built a barn.
"As far as I was concerned, I had two dads," said one of Beaumont's sons, now 33, who requested anonymity. He was 2 years old when Meadows joined the family.
"Dad helped with schoolwork and all the stuff around the house, taught me to ride horses and milk cows. Earl used to take me to the company picnics and Christmas parties. He bought me my first car."
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.
But in 1999, Meadows had a stroke and Beaumont took care of him for a year until he died at age 56.
That's where the fantasy of a life together on the range collides with reality. After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn't recognize domestic partnerships.
Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.
Unequal under the law

A judge ruled the rancher had to put the property, which was appraised at $100,000, on the market. The animals were sold. Beaumont had to move.
Because Meadows had no biological children or surviving parents, his estate was divided up among his heirs. When the ranch sells, the proceeds are to be divided among dozens of Meadows' cousins.
"They took the estate away from me," said Beaumont, who said he put about $200,000 of his own money into the ranch. "Everything that had Earl's name on it, they took. They took it all and didn't bat an eye."
Every state has common-law marriage rules that protect heterosexual couples. If someone dies without a will, or with a faulty one, his or her live-in partner is treated as the rightful inheritor.
But only seven states currently give gay couples protections -- such as inheritance rights and health benefits -- through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What's more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.
Today, there are roughly 90,000 gay couples living in small-town America, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, and more than 5,700 in Oklahoma.
Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.

 

[Abbey Normal]

If he had a second witness signature, the property would have gone to his intended beneficiary. That's not anti-gay; it's simply the consequence of his failure to follow the probate rules in his state. No to mention that fact that had he put his boyfriend's name on the deed, it would have automatically passed to him. Straight or gay, it is not advisable to rely on the state's rules of intestacy to have your property distributed. Too much can go wrong.

I thought the article was going to say that he wasn't allowed to leave property to his boyfriend. That would be unacceptable.

 

[NATO AIR]

Did you see the end?

Every state has common-law marriage rules that protect heterosexual couples. If someone dies without a will, or with a faulty one, his or her live-in partner is treated as the rightful inheritor.
But only seven states currently give gay couples protections -- such as inheritance rights and health benefits -- through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What's more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.
Today, there are roughly 90,000 gay couples living in small-town America, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, and more than 5,700 in Oklahoma.
Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Did you see the end?

Yes, I saw it. And that does not in any way prevent anyone, gay or straight, from leaving their property to anyone they choose to. As I said, had that man followed the simple rules of his state for testamentary giving, or taken the simple step of putting his guy's name on the mortgage/deed, all would be well.

Intended beneficiaries of heterosexual people sometimes suffer because of technicalities too, you know. People who don't know what they are doing should hire a T&E lawyer to draft their Wills.

This article is a somewhat sensationalist piece trying to engender sympathy based on alleged homosexual discrimination, when in actuality, what really happened here was a technical mistake.

 

[007]

Did you see the end?

What's more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.

Good for Oklahoma.

Out.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, I saw it. And that does not in any way prevent anyone, gay or straight, from leaving their property to anyone they choose to. As I said, had that man followed the simple rules of his state for testamentary giving, or taken the simple step of putting his guy's name on the mortgage/deed, all would be well.

Intended beneficiaries of heterosexual people sometimes suffer because of technicalities too, you know. People who don't know what they are doing should hire a T&E lawyer to draft their Wills.

This article is a somewhat sensationalist piece trying to engender sympathy based on alleged homosexual discrimination, when in actuality, what really happened here was a technical mistake.

Which clearly shows why the article is biased.

The fact is gays can leave their partners whatever they want in their wills. But if the wills aren't legally done correctly then its sure not biased when you leave it up to intestacy statutes. You are exactly right. Heterosexuals suffer from intestacy laws too when wills aren't made out properly.

The law isn't anti gay. its simply anti-"anyone too stupid enough not to make a will properly."

 

[jAZ]

Which clearly shows why the article is biased.

The fact is gays can leave their partners whatever they want in their wills. But if the wills aren't legally done correctly then its sure not biased when you leave it up to intestacy statutes. You are exactly right. Heterosexuals suffer from intestacy laws too when wills aren't made out properly.

The law isn't anti gay. its simply anti-"anyone too stupid enough not to make a will properly."

In theory, the same argument could be made about heterosexual marriages. Yet the legal purpose of marriage is to define and extend explictly a collection of rights to a pair of people that don't otherwise exist.

Something that in many cases is unnecessary and duplicate as in this case. Yet still it is done in a blanket fashion for the very practical purpose of providing a clear deliniation of rights from which to start.

 

[jAZ]

this is where I can agree with and support the arguments of homosexuals who want a "civil union". I don't want them married, but for pete's sake they do need to be able to have some sort of legal rights.

Seems like word play to me (the whole idea of drawing a distinction between marriage and civil union), but if people feel its necessary to create such a distinction I have what I believe is a much better solution.

Civil Unions For All and Marriage for Church

The idea is simply that (in the spirit of small government) we remove them from the practice of religion. Marriage is a primarily religious thing, that was eventually sanctioned by the state with a corresponding set of property defining laws.

Well, let's go back to that.

Let churches define marriage however they choose (liberal ones will "marry" gays, conservative ones won't).

The government won't "marry" anyone. It will authorize civil unions between any two parties sincerely committing to a lifetime union. And leave the marriage issue to the churches thus putting the protection of the concept of Marriage in the hands of the Churches and their parishioners who care deeply about the term.

Hell, in the case of same sex partners, they don't even necessarily need to be "gay". It's pretty reasonable that two widowed old war buddies might become roommates and best friends and blood brothers and choose to petition for a civil union in order to formalize that blood bond to always be there for the other.

 

[manu1959]

why do people look to the govt. to take care of them.....morons....if you don't put it in your will, in writing, you get what you get....abby is so spot on they knew there were no gay marraige rules in oklahoma yet they don't protect themselves with wills .... they were stupid they get wht they get....however a good probate lawyer would get the one dude still alive the entire gig......

 

[NATO AIR]

Nuff said then.

I still think they deserve the same rights for issues like this, besides the basic common sense issue of having a proper will.

In the military alone, over 40% of wills are not properly written and authorized... a common problem we continue to deal with every year with new recruits and revised wills.

It may be sensationalist but it brings up a valid point, i.e. the gays need their basic rights.

I don't want them to be marrying and crap like that under the laws, but I have no problem with the gays getting their civil union benefits and what not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

er, "proper" wills?.....people think they "protect" themselves with wills? don't they know that wills are just for greedy lawyers who make out like bandits in probate? if you have anything much to pass on, skip the solo will and avoid probate by getting a trust instead. anybody can get one, married or not. :read:

 

[KarlMarx]

Redefining marriage is just like buying a new car when the one you have gets a flat tire.

Many of the arguments for gay marriage are simply fallacies. The one that seems to be used most often is property rights. Yet, two attorneys on this thread agree, that issue can be resolved using existing law.

So, what is the point? You live together, sleep together, can leave each other property, in the case of major corporations, you each can cover each other under your benefits, what more do you want?

Is it that you want legitimacy and approval for what you do? You can forget that for many people. Many of us, while we don't really care what you do in private are sick and tired of it being stuck in our faces.

The institution of marriage is on the ropes .... it doesn't need this.

There are bigger issues out there. A LOT bigger than whether the States should give gays recognition through the institution of marriage. For one, is the rights of single fathers, like myself, who in many cases are alienated from their children (which they fathered while married, by the way) under the sanction of the courts. And, how many of the children of said fathers are being abused, physically and sexually, by the boyfriends of said mothers at a rate that is 20 times that of children abused by their fathers. And how the media vilifies, demonizes single fathers as deadbeat dads, when in fact many of us pay our child support on time (which by the way, we have no right to find out what is actually done with the money, and is tax free to the recipient) and in fact there are many more deadbeat mothers out there that don't get mentioned.

P.S. What's with the gay bumper stickers? Those make me mad, too. What are those for? You think that the world is going to give you a freaking medal for being gay? And I can imagine Mr and Mrs Smith with their little kids, embarrassingly trying to explain (or more likely lie) why the car in front of them has all the pretty rainbows. I can imagine if every other sexual deviant advertised their preferences on the back of their car, truck or SUV...

"I f--- my brother/sister"

"Ask me about my panties"

"You won't want another, when you get sucked off by your mother!"

"Man-animal love - just say yes"

"I'm sexy and bold because I like to f--- them when they're dead and cold"

"A boy needs a man... to do him up the can"

"Why bother when you can get it from your father?"

"People who love each other, pee on each other"

"No matter if it's sunny or if it rains, the weather is always right for whips and chains!"

 

[jAZ]

What's with the gay bumper stickers? Those make me mad, too. What are those for? You think that the world is going to give you a freaking medal for being gay?

I'm guessing you hate all bumber stickers with that rationale.

 

[Kagom]

P.S. What's with the gay bumper stickers? Those make me mad, too. What are those for? You think that the world is going to give you a freaking medal for being gay? And I can imagine Mr and Mrs Smith with their little kids, embarrassingly trying to explain (or more likely lie) why the car in front of them has all the pretty rainbows. I can imagine if every other sexual deviant advertised their preferences on the back of their car, truck or SUV...

"I f--- my brother/sister"

"Ask me about my panties"

"You won't want another, when you get sucked off by your mother!"

"Man-animal love - just say yes"

"I'm sexy and bold because I like to f--- them when they're dead and cold"

"A boy needs a man... to do him up the can"

"Why bother when you can get it from your father?"

"People who love each other, pee on each other"

"No matter if it's sunny or if it rains, the weather is always right for whips and chains!"

1) Your bumper sticker sayings were funny
2) The gay bumper stickers are just a display that you're proud to be gay.

 

[KarlMarx]

1) Your bumper sticker sayings were funny
2) The gay bumper stickers are just a display that you're proud to be gay.

it's simple.... if you're gay, no problem. If you want to shove it in my face... big problem.

It's like this, if someone tries to get you to convert to a born again Christian and is in your face about it, how would you feel? The in-your-face stuff bothers most people.

In polite society, we don't talk about our sex lives in public. Nor do we expect people to be proud of it.

Hey... if I have irritible bowel syndrome, should I have a bumper sticker ?

 

[jAZ]

it's simple.... if you're gay, no problem. If you want to shove it in my face... big problem.

It's like this, if someone tries to get you to convert to a born again Christian and is in your face about it, how would you feel? The in-your-face stuff bothers most people.

In polite society, we don't talk about our sex lives in public. Nor do we expect people to be proud of it.

Hey... if I have irritible bowel syndrome, should I have a bumper sticker ?

So you feel the same about the Jesus fish symbols? And the WWJD wristbands from a few years back? And the One Nation UNDER GOD bumper stickers?

Sounds like you would be viscerally angry at those people too.

 

[jAZ]

I think you need a bumber sticker on your car that says "I hate bumper stickers".

 

[GotZoom]

This is not a "gay" issue.

This is a "estate planning" issue.

I can leave my estate to a goldfish if I so choose.

It wouldn't have mattered if the cowboys were gay, brothers, friends, male and female, or cowboy and horse. The paperwork wasn't filled out correctly.

 

[dmp]

side note: God Bless Oklahoma.

 

[jAZ]

This is not a "gay" issue.

This is a "estate planning" issue.

I can leave my estate to a goldfish if I so choose.

It wouldn't have mattered if the cowboys were gay, brothers, friends, male and female, or cowboy and horse. The paperwork wasn't filled out correctly.

When you are straight and married, paperwork doesn't matter. Therefore it is (to some extent) a "gay" issue.