They were right: Same-sex marriage ‘changed everything.’ Well, by adding $3.7 billion to the economy.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States in 2015, a lot of conservatives and religious folks predicted it would be the end of the world.  Instead, it added $3.7 billion to the economy.

Same-sex marriage = $3.7 billion.  In fact, on the day same-sex marriage was made legal, searches on the popular website Bible Gateway for “end times” reached an all-time high. Evangelical preacher Pat Robertson claimed that after the decision we’d all be having relations with marriage $3.7 billion

“Watch what happens, love affairs between men and animals are going to be absolutely permitted. Polygamy, without question, is going to be permitted. And it will be called a right,” Robertson said.

Well, the world didn’t end and no one has married their cat … yet. But what did happen was a surge of economic activity.

A new study by the The Williams Institute found that since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in the United States in 2015, LGBT weddings have boosted state and local economies by an estimated $3.8 billion.

“Marriage equality has changed the lives of same-sex couples and their families,” the study’s lead author Christy Mallory, said in a statement. “It has also provided a sizable benefit to business and state and local governments.”

Since Massachusetts first legalized gay marriage in 2004, more than half a million same-sex couples have married in America.

The economic impact of same-sex marriage has created more than 45,000 jobs and generated an additional $244 million in state and local taxes. Over $500 million in revenue has been generated by friends and family members traveling to and from same-sex weddings., by Tod Perry, May 29, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The Most Detailed Map of Same-sex Married Couples in America

More than three years after a Supreme Court decision gave federal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in states that allowed them, the demographics of same-sex married couples largely remain a mystery.

In fact, no one has a definitive count of same-sex married couples in the United States.

One reason it’s hard to get a fix on the marriages is that detailed marriage records are not tracked at the federal level. They’re managed by counties and states, which report the count of marriages and not much else. The Census Bureau isn’t always a lot of help either. Methodological problems like sample size and false positives have long plagued census estimates of this relatively small group.

But a new research paper published by the Treasury Department on Monday has found an interesting way around these problems: tax records.marriage equality

By linking the tax returns of same-sex couples who filed jointly in 2014 with their Social Security records, researchers are able to give us the most accurate picture of same-sex marriages to date. And their estimate is this: In 2014 there were 183,280. same-sex marriages in America, roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages.

Of course, implicit in this estimate is the assumption that all married couples file their returns jointly. But as a proxy for that, it’s pretty good. The Treasury Department estimates that 97.5 percent of married couples file joint returns.

One highlight of the study: Pretax household income of same-sex married couples is higher than that of heterosexual married couples. Most of that is driven by the average earnings of male same-sex couples: $176,000. On average, they make $52,000 more than married lesbian couples and $63,000 more than married straight couples.

Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said one reason is the gender pay gap. The math here is simple — for heterosexual couples, the gender pay gap affects one partner. For same-sex female couples, the gender pay gap affects both partners.

But that doesn’t explain why same-sex female married couples earn more than heterosexual married couples, over all. The other key component is geography. The tax data shows same-sex married couples clustering along the coasts, and in urban pockets across the United States. These are regions that also tend to have higher wages. In fact, heterosexual couples actually earn more than same-sex female ones when you compare married couples who live in the same three-digit ZIP code region.

Child care plays a huge role as well. Same-sex female couples are four times more likely to have children than same-sex male couples. That means that many women will have to make tough trade-offs between career and family. Combine that with the likelihood of lower pay to begin with and you start to understand why the income differences are so large.

New York Times, September 12, 2016 by Quoctrung Bui

Click here to read the entire article.

Mormons in Same Sex Marriages & Children Banned

Same Sex Marriages & Children Banned

Children of same sex marriages will not be able to join the Mormon Church until they turn 18 — and only if they move out of their parents’ homes, disavow all same-sex relationships and receive approval from the church’s top leadership as part of a new policy adopted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In addition, Mormons in Mormons in same sex marriages will be considered apostates and subject to excommunication, a more rigid approach than the church has taken in the past.

The new policies were contained in a handbook for lay leaders that was disseminated on Thursday to those who administer the church’s 30,000 congregations around the world. The church made no public announcement of the change, but it was leaked to the news media and confirmed by a church spokesman.

Mormons in same sex marriages will be considered apostates and subject to excommunication

“The church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages,” the spokesman, Eric Hawkins, said in a statement. “While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, it does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership.”

Before the handbook change, bishops and congregational leaders had more discretion in whether or how far to discipline Mormons in same-sex marriages. Now same-sex marriage has been added to a list of conditions considered apostasy, which means Mormons in same-sex marriages will be subject to disciplinary hearings that result in excommunication.

Some liberal Mormons expressed outrage online at the new policies. Jana Riess, a columnist with Religion News Service, said she was livid that children born to those living out of wedlock, as well as rapists and murderers, can be baptized and blessed, but not children of monogamous same-sex couples.

“It’s heartbreaking for me to see my church drawing this line in the sand, which leaves faithful L.G.B.T. members with an impossible choice: They can either be excluded from lifelong love and companionship, or excluded from the blessings of the church,” she said.

The church has actively lobbied against laws legalizing same-sex unions, but has also in recent years supported laws intended to protect gay people from discrimination. In March of this year, leaders at the church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City helped to pass a bill known as the “Utah compromise,” which bans discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in housing and employment but protects religious institutions that do not condone gay relationships.

Click here to read the entire article.


New York Times, by Laurie Goldstein, November 6, 2015

Civil Union Vermont; No Equitable Distribution NY

New York Trial Court Holds New York Property Acquired During a Vermont Civil Union is Not Subject to Equitable Distribution in New York Dissolution Proceeding

In a rather complicated opinion, New York Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger ruled on October 23 that New York property acquired by Deborah O’Reilly-Morshead during her Vermont Civil Union with Christine O’Reilly-Morshead is not subject to equitable distribution under New York law in the current divorce proceeding between the women, who married in Canada after the property was acquired. O’Reilly-Morshead v. O’Reilly-Morshead, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3843, 2015 NY Slip Op 25354 (Supreme Ct., Monroe County).

Deborah and Christine began their relationship in 2001 while living in Indiana, where they had a “union ceremony” with no legal significance. They moved to New York in 2002, Deborah selling a house she owned in Indiana. They went to Vermont in 2003 and contracted a civil union, while continuing to reside in New York. In 2004 Deborah used the proceeds from the sale of her Indiana house and her other resources to buy a house in Rochester, New York, which was recorded in her name only. In 2006, the women ventured up to Canada to marry, continuing to maintain their residence in Rochester. Five years later, Deborah filed a divorce action in Monroe County Supreme Court, seeking equitable distribution of “marital property.” She excluded from that category the house, which she had purchased with her own assets prior to the marriage. Christine counter sued for divorce and dissolution of the Vermont Civil Union (calling on the equitable powers of the court for the latter), and contended that the house, purchased %after% the parties contracted their civil union, should be considered property of the civil union subject to distribution under Vermont law, and so should be included as part of the marital property subject to dissolution in the New York proceeding. As the parties could not resolve their dispute about the status of the house, it fell to the court to decide both whether it had the power to dissolve the civil union and also whether it had the authority or power to make an order regarding ownership rights to the house.

Relying on prior court decisions finding that New York Supreme Court justices can dissolve civil unions drawing upon their general equitable powers, Judge Dollinger had no trouble deciding that he could grant Christine’s request to dissolve the civil union, but dealing with the house was a more complicated matter.

The court’s authority to distribute property in a divorce proceeding is not based on general equitable principles, but rather on the equitable distribution provisions of New York’s Domestic Relations Law, a statute passed by the Legislature that provides that “marital property,” defined as property acquired during the marriage of the parties, is subject to distribution between the parties upon divorce. Clearly, this house was not acquired “during the marriage.” While it was clear to the court that if Christine brought an action to dissolve the civil union in Vermont, a Vermont court could treat the house as “property of the civil union” and thus subject to distribution between the civil union partners under Vermont law, it was not clear that a New York court would have that authority, and a review by Justice Dollinger of New York case law provided, in his view, little support for Christine’s argument.

He wrote, “This court considers ‘marital property’ as defined by the Legislature in the Domestic Relations Law as the linch pin on which New York’s entire system of marital property distribution rests. If the property is ‘marital,’ the court can equitably distribute it. If not, the court has no jurisdiction to change title or ownership to it. Because of the central importance of creating an exact context in which courts could order a transfer to title to property, the Legislature adopted a black line test for determining when ‘distributable property’ existed in a marriage. The date of marriage – and no other date – is the time when ‘marital property’ exists,” citing Dom. Rel. L. sec. 236(B)(1)(c). While the courts have adopted a broad definition of “property” for purposes of enforcing this statute, Dollinger wrote, they had not adopted a broad definition of “marital,” adhering strictly to the statutory definition. On top of this, of course, when adopting its Civil Union Act in 2000, the Vermont legislature included a provision expressly declaring that a civil union is not a marriage, and Dollinger saw no basis for arguing that a New York court should or could treat a Vermont civil union as a marriage.

He also rejected the notion that the court could apply the doctrine of “comity” in order to treat the property the way it would be treated under Vermont law, pointing out the difficulties that would ensue in dealing with property claims based on a civil unions and domestic partnerships from the various jurisdictions where those statuses were created during the period between 2000 and the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision on June 26, 2015. This would require New York courts to inquire into the nature of legal relationships in other jurisdictions and how they treated property distributions upon dissolution.

While he noted that some other states had dealt with this problem through express statutory provisions when adopting their marriage equality laws – notably Vermont and New Hampshire – and that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had accorded marital-like status to Vermont civil unions for some purposes, he observed, “Neither the New York Legislature nor the Court of Appeals has yet moved New York’s law into the same orbit as our neighboring sister states. The Legislature, in the Marriage Equality Act, simply made same-sex marriage legal in New York. It did not mandate that same-sex couples, who were united in civil unions in other state, acquired property rights through that civil union that are equal to the property rights granted to married couples.” By contrast, Vermont’s marriage equality law says that civil unions from other states would be treated as equivalent to marriages in Vermont. If the New York legislature were to amend the NY Marriage Equality law to add similar language, this problem would disappear.

For those tracking the development of these issues in New York, Justice Dollinger’s opinion provides a useful summary of the court opinions that have had to grapple with how civil unions elsewhere should be treated by New York courts. Unfortunately, none of them provides direct guidance about how to decide this case. Most of them deal with disputes involving custody, visitation and child support.

The judge also considered an alternative theory of treating the Vermont civil union as equivalent to a contract under which the parties agreed that property acquired during their civil union would be deemed jointly-owned property. There is precedent under New York law for the enforcement of express pre-nuptial agreements, for example, that would control the distribution of property, and the Court of Appeals has extended that concept to express agreements by non-marital cohabiting couples about their property rights, but has refused to enforce “implied” agreements based on cohabitation. While acknowledging that Christine’s argument along these lines “has a power logic,” Dollinger concluded that it went beyond what he was authorized to do under current law. “In this court’s view,” he wrote, “the proof problems and other complications that drove the Court of Appeals to deny recognition of an implied agreement for asset distribution between an unmarried couple are not present, in the same degree, in a civil union.” The Court of Appeals was worried about the problem of “amorphous” agreements that would not provide the kind of “black line” test that the term “marital property” provides. Dollinger acknowledged that this problem might not pertain to civil unions, which had well-defined contours in statutes such as Vermont’s Civil Union Act. “However,” he wrote, “whether this court should, in interpreting the Court of Appeals use of the word ‘amorphous’ in these opinions, conclude that the common use of this word was a springboard to change the definition of ‘marital property’ to include property – acquired during a statutory well-defined union in another state, but not acquired during a marriage – is, in view of this court’s limited authority, unwise. This interpretative reed – based on the use of the same word by justices more than two decades apart – is too tender to carry such weight.”

Ultimately, Dollinger concluded that the failure of the New York legislature to pass any statute recognizing out-of-state civil unions for any purpose effectively tied his hands. “There is no general common law of equity that is equivalent to the statutory creation of an equitable distribution power in the Domestic Relations Law,” he wrote, pointing out that the Court of Appeals has frequently ruled that a “marriage – of whatever type or from whatever jurisdiction – is the only touchstone for equitable distribution of property in New York.”

“In reaching this conclusion, the court is struck by the anomaly this case represents: this court is dissolving a pre-existing civil union, but only allowing equitable property distribution based on the couple’s marriage. Any ‘civil union’ property – which would be subject to distribution if this matter were venued in Vermont – remains titled in the name of the current title holder and is not subject to distribution,” he wrote. “In short, this court provides one remedy to the couple – dissolving the civil union – but declines to provide any further remedies based on their civil union. This court has no solution for this conundrum without violating longstanding principles of New York marriage-based laws. Any further answer rests with the Legislature.”

Click here to read the entire article.


October 30, 2015 - by Art Leonard,

Gay marriage signed into law in Ireland

Gay Marriage Voted in by 62.1% in Ireland

Dublin (AFP) – Gay marriage was signed into law in Ireland, five months after a historic referendum saw the traditionally Catholic nation become the world’s first country to vote for gay unions.

“The Presidential Commission today signed the ‘Marriage Bill 2015’ into law,” the president’s office said in a statement, paving the way for the first weddings within a month.

Ireland voted 62.1 percent in favour of allowing marriage between two people “without distinction as to their sex” in May, the first time anywhere that gay marriage has been legalised in a referendum.

The president’s endorsement was the final hurdle for the bill after legal challenges briefly delayed the legislation from coming into effect.

The first ceremonies should be possible by mid-November, according to Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald.

Senator Katherine Zappone, who had long campaigned for her Canadian marriage to her wife to be recognised in Ireland, called it “a defining moment”.

“It is a deeply emotional moment for those of us who have campaigned for so long,” Zappone said in a statement.

“This victory truly belongs to the nation, it is a moment for us all.”

In a memorable moment that unfolded live on national television after the referendum result was announced, Zappone proposed to her wife Ann Louise Gilligan to re-marry her under Irish law.

International gay rights campaigners congratulated efforts by Irish activists to win public support for a “Yes” vote in the referendum.

“Tribute must also be paid to national politicians in Ireland, as all the main political parties put aside their partisan differences to campaign for the greater goal of equality,” Evelyne Paradis of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association said in a statement.

Marriages between same sex couples that took place outside of Ireland will now be recognised under Irish law.

Click here to read the entire article., October 30, 2015

Step Parent Adoption; Married still need one?

Step Parent Adoption; Marriage means I don’t need one?

Step Parent adoption is still a must to secure your family, even after marriage equality.  Marriage equality was a long fought battle and a much celebrated victory for gay and lesbian couples across the country. Now that it is the law of the land, many people mistakenly believe that their marriage alone will secure their family. Unfortunately family law has not caught up to the realities of how we create our modern families.

For both gay and lesbian couples, securing the legal rights of a non-biological parent is crucial to create the kind of emotional, and legal, security that most other families take for granted. The legality of both parents relationship to their child is often assumed. Parents are parents, regardless of the biological connection to your child. In New York State, the law doesn’t agree.

Married lesbian couples in many states, New York included, can list a non-biological mother name as a parent on a child’s birth certificate if they are married at the time of the birth of the child and they use an anonymous sperm donor. While a name on a birth certificate is an important goal, it in itself does not create a legal relationship, only through step parent adoption can they be acheived.

Step Parent adoption is still a must to secure your family, even after marriage equality.

In New York County, Surrogate Judge Kristin Booth Glen, in a case entitled In the Matter of Sebastian, discusses the issue of establishing parental rights for a non-biological parent specifically.  The case involves married lesbian couple who used an anonymous sperm donor to have a child. Glen concludes, when discussing the non-biological mother’s relationship with the child that, “the only remedy available here that would accord the parties full and unassailable protection is a second-parent adoption pursuant to New York Domestic Relations Law (“DRL”) § 111 et seq.”  Glen further states, “that a judicial order of adoption in one state must be afforded full faith and credit in every state, and that there can be no “public Policy” exception to that mandatory recognition…”.

While it is true that many states have what is called a “martial presumption of parentage,” the truth about this is that it is applied differently in different states.  For instance, in New York State, where I practice, there is specific case law that holds that the marital presumption of parentage does not apply to same-sex couples.  That case is called “Matter of Paczkowski v. Paczkowski.”  In that case, the appellate division of the Second Department of New York, the state’s intermediate appellate court, held that the “presumption of legitimacy… is one of a biological relationship, not a legal status.”

In essence, the court says that a marriage does not create a legal right between a non-biological parent and a child.  While it may be an indication of intent to be a parent, as would a non-biological parent’s name on a birth certificate, the only way to actually create the legal relationship that guarantees the security that all same-sex families need, is through an adoption order, and in some states, a parentage order.  Unfortunately, New York currently does not have the capacity to issue a parentage order but there is legislation in committee in Albany that may change that. 

Surrogate Options & Known Donors Complicate the Legalities of Chosen Families

One further compounding variable is that many lesbian couples are now choosing known sperm donors. While the desire for a child to know their biological heritage and have a father figure makes sense to many couples, adding another potential parent into the mix can create problems if an adoption does not take place to terminate the donor’s rights to the child and create the intended, non-biological parent’s rights to their child.

For male couples who want to have biologically related children, surrogacy is the only real option. Surrogacy is an emotionally, and financially, exhausting process.  It is a true leap of faith.  Couples considering surrogacy must juggle a myriad of concerns, the least of which being the cost.  With gestational surrogacy tabs running as high as $180,000.00, budgeting is a must.  Lawyer’s fees are often lumped together in surrogacy accounting statements, and some agencies do not include the cost of a second or step parent adoption in order to keep the numbers low.  Often, the cost of a pre-birth order is less than a second parent adoption.

step parents adoption, step parent adoption, adoption step parent, adoption for step parents

In some cases, depending on where your surrogate mother gives birth, her name may be removed from the child’s original birth certificate by a proceeding called a pre-birth order.  Some states do not provide for pre-birth orders.  Those that do may or may not replace the surrogate’s name with that of the non-biological intended parent.  California, for instance, does offer the ability to include the non-biological parent’s name on the child’s original birth certificate, and that very significant step is often mistakenly viewed as a replacement for a second parent adoption, which is the only definitive way to establish parental rights between a non-biological parent and a child born through surrogacy.

In order to understand why a second parent adoption is vital if you have a pre or post-birth (or parentage) order, you must understand what that order is, and what protections it provides.  Pre and post-birth orders are court orders that are obtained by filing a petition in the appropriate court in the state in which the child will be born.  Often, these petitions are not filed in the county where the carrier lives, but in a county which has a judge who understands the importance of these orders and grants them upon the motion of an attorney representing the intended parents.  This in itself may create a problem.

Some states may not recognize the relationship created by the pre-birth order because of the lack of a full judicial process attendant to a parentage order.  For an issue to be precluded from challenge, for instance the issue of a non-biological parent’s relationship to a child born through surrogacy, the court looks at the process by which that issue has been established.  The reason why adoption orders from one state are valid in every state, regardless of the gender of the parents, is because the judicial process of the adoption.  The state, for all intents and purposes, becomes and “adversary” to the adoptive parents in the adoption process.  The state performs background checks, it orders that fingerprints be taken, mandates that a home study is performed by a licensed social worker to ensure that the child’s prospective residence is safe and clean and essentially verifies all adoption requirements submitted by the petitioning parent, or parents.  The adoption order is the product of a fully litigated judicial process.  Because this rigorous process is not part of a parentage order proceeding, states which do not offer such orders may not recognize a relationship created in one.

Furthermore, some courts, through a parentage order, will add the name of the non-biological parent to the original birth certificate if that person is married to the biological parent.  For same-sex couples, this can present an issue, particularly if the non-biological parent’s relationship to the child is being challenged in a state that resists same-sex marriage.  These situations usually arise upon the dissolution of a relationship and during the custody/visitation/support aspect of that process.

Protecting our families may seem like navigating a ship through a sea of legal, financial and emotional waters.  But what is more important than the security of knowing that every child has a legal relationship with their parents that cannot be challenged for whatever reason. Every parent deserves that security as well.

by Anthony M. Brown – September 16, 2015

Anthony M. Brown, Esq. currently is an associate with the law firm of Albert W. Chianese & Associates heading their Nontraditional Family and Estates Law division serving unmarried individuals, couples and families in Manhattan and on Long Island.  Anthony is the Executive Director of The Wedding Party and has been a Board member since its inception in 1999.   The Wedding Party is a non-profit educational organization that educates the public about marriage and its importance to all citizens through outreach programs and strategic media placement. Anthony is the founder of, a web environment dedicated to assisting gay and lesbian couples create their own families. Anthony is the Board Chairman of Men Having Babies, a non-profit organization created to assist gay men looking create families through surrogate options and is a legal consultant for Family By Design, a co-parenting information and matching website.



Miracle at the Walmart

by Anthony M. Brown, 12/26/09

It was 3:00 in the morning on December 26th in a West Virginia Walmart parking lot when it happened. For me, disco changed to diapers a long time ago when I became a donor dad to lesbian friends, but the reality of fatherhood was enjoyed from a distance.   Now, with the arrival of Nicholas in September, I am a full-time dad and this fun-gay-New Yorker-activist shops at Walmart. I am officially no longer a gay man.

I will always be a husband-loving kind of guy at heart, but my identity, which has been founded on my sexual orientation, now comes from love for my son. That’s why I was in a Walmart parking lot. Nicholas suffered his first illness on Christmas day when he caught my sister’s cold.  When you have no immune system, even the common cold can rock your world.  I set out to find Infant’s Tylenol at 2:30 AM, full well knowing that it was a long shot to even find a store that was open, much less stocked with exactly what I needed.  After my third 7-11, which only carries Children’s Motrin (for ages 2-11) I saw the Walmart and a few employees standing outside the front door.  I decided to swallow my politically correct pride and go for it.

After parking and walking towards the door, I was informed by a man named Paul that the store would open at 6 AM.  I asked if anyone knew where I could get Infant’s Tylenol.  All three pointed to the 7-11 across the parking lot.  I told them about the Motrin and that I had a sick three-month-old at home, and I guess I looked a little freaked out because Paul told me to wait where I was.  He disappeared into the closed Walmart and 10 minutes later returned with a bag containing Infant’s Tylenol, Cherry flavored, and a receipt with his name on it.

He told me that someone once helped him out when his infant was sick and that he wanted to pay it forward.  I thanked him with a tear in my eye and felt an undeniable bond with this Christmas stranger, who gave me much more than medicine for my son.  I realized in that moment why the gay marriage misinformation campaign staged by The National Organization for Marriage in California, Maine, New York and New Jersey was so successful.

Gay Marriage Taught in Schools? National Organization for Marriage lies and mis-truths run rampant!

Most any parent you meet will tell you that their greatest concern in life is the health and welfare of their children.  I am gay by design, but a father by choice and I know that I would do anything for Nicholas.  When NOM told Americans that gay marriage would somehow be taught in schools, as if traditional marriage is taught in schools, voters on the fence erred on the side of concern for their children.  This tactic is particularly repugnant because the implication of their message was that even the slightest tolerance for gay people and gay marriage is unacceptable.  God forbid being gay is normalized in any way!

When I was in school, I was teased mercilessly by my classmates because they figured out I was gay before I did.  Teachers and administrators watched the taunting and did nothing, perhaps because they had no tools to deal with this kind of harassment.  When it got so bad that my parents had to remove me from that school, I heard that the administration finally did address that matter.  If they had done so when I was there, perhaps I would not have had such a difficult time later in my education.  But  I was lucky.  School children killing themselves due to gay taunting has finally stepped out the closet and more people know about Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover and Keheem Herrera, two such children, or Lawrence King, the California 15-year-old who was murdered by a classmate because he was gay.

The coordinated resistance to tolerance in schools continues to be seen in the backlash to gay straight alliances today.  Case after case filed to stop these alliances is being heard by courts all over the country and, thankfully, courts are honoring their existence.  But the problem in schools continues.  Mayor Bloomberg, our so called ally, still refuses to fully implement DASA (The Dignity for all Students Act of 2004) which would outlaw bullying based on, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The National Organization for Marriage knows that when today’s youth have children, the atmosphere in schools inevitably bends toward acceptance and they will have lost their keynote anti-equality claim.  I say good riddance, and I say thank you Paul from Walmart for helping me and my son in our hour of need.

Anthony M. Brown is the head of the Nontraditional Family and Estates Division of the law firm of Albert W. Chianese and Associates.  He is also the executive director of The Wedding Party.