- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
Frank Mandelbaum's Will Says His Gay Son, Robert Mandelbaum, Must Marry a Woman
Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Robert Mandelbaum is trying to overturn his father's will that says he must marry the surrogate mother of his child. However, Robert is already married to a man, Johnathan O'Donnell, reports the Daily Mail.
Frank Mandelbaum, Robert's late father who died in 2007, had set aside a $180,000 trust for his three grandchildren.
According to the New York Post, Robert Mandelbaum's son Cooper Mandell will lose his inheritance if Robert is "not married to the child's mother within six months of the child's birth."
Yet Robert and Johnathan were married in 2011 when Cooper was 16 months old. The child's mother is a surrogate, whose name has not been made public.
Robert Mandelbaum claims the only "mother" Cooper knows is O'Donnell.
According to the New York Post, Robert Mandelbaum's attorney Anne Bederka wrote in court papers: "Requiring a gay man to marry a woman . . . to ensure his child’s bequest is tantamount to expecting him either to live in celibacy, or to engage in extramarital activity with another man, and is therefore contrary to public policy."
However, wills are a private matter. not public, so it is not clear what chances, if any, Robert Mandelbaum has to overturn the will.
(Frank Mandelbaum)
(Johnathan O'Donnell)
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
You can't undo a legal
You can't undo a legal document. A Will is a Will. You can't change the words of it.
You haters can rant and rave
You haters can rant and rave all you wish, but this man absolutely has the right to set such conditions. I don't think it's realistic to demand that his son marry a particular woman. But a reasonable request would have been either that he marry a woman or, at least, that he divorce his male partner and remain abstinent. The pro-homosexual lobby is the biggest bunch of God-hating liars out there. Virtually everything they stand for is wrong. This includes the lie that so-called homosexuals can't change, either by becoming heterosexual or simply abstinent. Most people develop various sexual orientations or inclinations, which they can either choose to indulge or not. But heterosexuality is the only one that meets God's design for us. All of the other ones lead inevitably to misery in the long run.
What is going on today with this issue confirms what it says in the 1st chapter of the New Testament book of Romans. Namely, that approval of homosexuality is a basic sign of the corruption of mankind. Every man, woman and child who has ever lived has known that The One True God exists and that he or she ought to seek God. But we are also born with a natural tendency to suppress this knowledge and rebel against our Maker & Sustainer. God calls us to repent of our rebellion and seek Him, listen to Him and give Him the glory due His Name.
Yours is the most hateful
Yours is the most hateful post on the entire thread.... someone like you quoting the bible is really distasteful, you hypocrite.
What do you mean "someone
What do you mean "someone like you"? You don't know me. You simply assume that people who believe the Bible are haters and morons. That is prejudicial on your part. I find that people who can only label others are the real haters.
CINO... Nothing in any of
CINO... Nothing in any of your posts comes across as Christian, so see you can aSSume all you want. You are wrong and hateful and judgemental....
Well, it is interesting you
Well, it is interesting you are calling anyone would disagree with you a hater. It is almost as if you are not interest in any body opinion but your own. After all, if you did carefully consider other people opinions it might put you in a uncomfortable situation. However, I do understand that you hold that God and bible is foundation of morality. If I am wrong please correct me.
The bible is a book ridden with all sort of information that useful to just anyone to support their point view. In fact, it has stuff in it that supports the institution of Slavery and the subversion of women as property. Today, most good Christians reject both sexism and racism.
I only point this out in the hope that you reconsider your position on Homosexuality with a more open mind. I would like it if you thought about what actually harm homosexuals are doing in this life. If you do that, you might have a good answer and we will actually be made wiser for it. Thank you for consideration.
I did not call anyone who
I did not call anyone who disagrees with me a hater. But my experience in trying to dialogue with people shows that many do hate the traditional Christian position and the people who hold to it, especially w.r.t. homosexuality. (And it happens to be the position of most other religious traditions, as well.) As a person with a Master's & completed Ph.D. coursework in Biblical interpretation I am well aware that people have tried to use Scripture to support all sorts of evils. But it simply does not follow from this that there is not a correct way to interpret the Bible. The problem with most people, both in the past as well as today, is that the Bible must fit their preconceived notions. Instead, the Bible ought to be allowed to challenge them.
I am open-minded and respect the well-thought-out views of those with different perspectives (though not the views of bigots) and I am always willing to reconsider my views. But are you truly the same? I have wrestled with what the Bible says about all sorts of issues and have shifted on some of them from time to time. But it's usually in the direction opposite from today's culture mainly because the latter is dominated by an anti-Biblical bias, which distorts what the Bible teaches, and because I take seriously what the Bible says about Who God Is. Though I used to believe that I had the right to define what God I would worship, 30 years ago (as a Junior at Duke University) I came to realize that I had it backwards - God defines who I am. I don't define Who He Is. Accepting this is the key to understanding the Bible. In other words, if you begin by considering Who the Bible says God Is, all of the common objections to what the Bible says about everything else are overcomeable.
Unlike slavery and women's rights, the Bible is unmistakeably clear about homosexuality (along with adultery and forms of sexuality which almost everyone deplores, like bestiality and prostitution). Of course, people are always free to simply reject what the Bible says. But what is dishonest is to distort what it says.
I have no problem respecting people's privacy. But the problem is that the pro-homosexual movement has made this a public issue to such an extent that not just our right to express our beliefs publicly, but even our private religious convictions as Christians are now under assault. For example, there is a bill in California that is about to reach the Governor's desk which would make it illegal for Christians (or others) to seek counseling for their children which has the goal of re-orienting those with homosexual tendencies toward heterosexuality. Now, you may regard this as impossible (though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary). But, this is actually irrelevant when it comes to the rights of parents. In other words, it is our civil rights that are being threatened and taken away more than those of homosexuals.
Freedom is a two-way street. Your rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. This needs to be maintained but, sadly, it rarely is today by those on both sides. Tolerance means allowing others (like Mr. Mandelbaum) "the right to be wrong" from our point-of-view. I have no desire to outlaw homosexuality, as offensive as I believe it is before God. But homosexuals and their supporters have no right to force me to renounce what I believe and to endorse and support homosexuality. In such case, my response is the same as that of Martin Luther and of Peter in the book of Acts: "Judge for yourselves whether is it right for me to obey God or men."
Excuse me? You call groups
Excuse me? You call groups of folks 'haters', you CINO. Do you even read your own posts? You are so cloesd-minded it is a wonder you can get through the day. I repete - do you even read your own posts?
Excuse me, but calling
Excuse me, but calling someone else a hater does not necessarily make one a hater! Otherwise, Jesus was a hater. And you are a judgmental hypocrite to call me a CINO! You don't even know me at all, much less know what is in my heart! And you are really the one who is close-minded because you simply dismiss what I say (with prejudice also).
Jesus reserved His harshest words for those who claimed to know God, but by their actions and words denied Him. Sorry to say it, but this is exactly what you are doing simply by claiming to know what a real Christian is and then judging my motives. My motive is to try to show others that (just as I did for the first 20 years of my life) they are needlessly forsaking The Greatest Gift in the world - the forgiveness and restoration offered by God, which one can receive simply by admitting their need for it and asking for it. But, to claim that what God clearly calls sin (homosexuality) is good and normal is to call God a liar and to reject The One Who gives everyone life and all good things and, especially, The Greatest Gift.
You started out so well. Your
You started out so well. Your first sentence is absolutely correct. Then you descend into irrelevancy and bias.
and moronland....
and moronland....
I can't imagine what good
I can't imagine what good Mandelbaum thought could come of this, but it's his money. Maybe he just wanted to get in another dig at his son. Mean, but who knows if it's legal. Lots of people put conditions in their wills.
Matthew 22:20-22 Romans
Matthew 22:20-22 Romans 3:22-24 Matthew 6:19-24
The Catholic Heretic
Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge,
Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. Luke 6:37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Ultimate Judgement belongs to God, not man.
There is no offense, if none is taken
@Vee: Did you read the
@Vee: Did you read the scripture passages? The assumption is that when you use Bible passages that you are a believer, unless there is some reason not to. What in my prior message leads you to believe that I was passing judgement? I ask this because you replied directly to my post.
The Catholic Heretic
You still have yet to learn
You still have yet to learn that the bible is, at best, a weak defense, if any at all, of an opinion of secular law. Your book does not pertain to the world anymore. I has failed to keep up with the changes in society and the laws.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
"Your book does not pertain
"Your book does not pertain to the world anymore." And there lies the root of every single problem society has.
@Raptorcat: Spoken like a
@Raptorcat: Spoken like a true atheist.
The Catholic Heretic
No....spoken like someone who
No....spoken like someone who understands the difference between blind faith and context.
The context that existed when the book was written no longer applies, as society has evolved where your book has not.
And I am not an Atheist; I am a Wiccan priest, well versed in the vagarities of different religions and philosophies outside of my own.
Shame that you lack that understanding, as demonstrated by your poor attempt at an ad hominem attack at what you erroneously presumed was an Atheist.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
@Raptorcat: I'll admit I was
@Raptorcat: I'll admit I was ignorant of your wiccan background but you are inferring that I called you an atheist. I did not. I said you spoke like an atheist.
The Catholic Heretic
As a veteran, I am more a
As a veteran, I am more a Secularist, as far as this discussion is concerned. Theologically, I am a Wiccan.
I am a firm believer in the secular nature of this nation; it is what protects MY right to be free from lawful persecution by people of any religion or non-religious philosophy.
I support secularism and I will fight, to the death, if need be, protecting myself, my religion and others of other religions from the machinations of those religious and non-religious extremists that would deny me those rights under the mistaken idea that they are the ONLY true path.
Our founders saw the stupidity of supporting that foolish philosophy and anyone who takes an honest look at history can see the fact that any government run by either a religion or an "anti-religion" WILL fall hard.
Let us all look at Rome; it was a great empire, but began to collapse shortly after taking on a single religion as it's "national" religion. Prior to that, it was a very secular nation, accepting all religions as long as they were willing to coexist peacefully.
We are becoming the new Roman Empire, mostly thanks to Christian extremists in power.......exactly like what happened to Rome.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Dbag move by the father, but
Dbag move by the father, but probably legal. I've seen all kinds of ignorant nonsense held up in wills (related to religion, race, gender, you name it) ... and this doesn't seem much different.
Legality of the will aside, I question if it would have even been possible to fulfil though. The surrogate probably wouldn't have wanted to marry, unless perhaps it was temporary and she got a cut in the deal or something, and I question even with today's laxed divorce laws how easy it would be to go through two divorces and two marriages (if he re-married his original spouce at some time) for the sole (and known) purpose of making some money off a will.
Just cuz I think
Just cuz I think HOMOSEXUALITY is an UNNATURAL PERVERTED & DEMEANTED lifestyle that does NOT make me a BIGOT. But if you want to call me a BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE or RACIST go right ahead. In matter of fact I am president of HOMOPHOBES of AMERICA, LOL
Actually, it is natural. You
Actually, it is natural. You find it in nature among the animals as well as what is considered "normal", or Heterosexual. The definition of Natural is, Present in or produced by nature. Don't get me wrong though, as a heterosexual, I don't like to see same sex couples kiss, but that's probably because I don't find my sex attractive. Though, (tongue in cheek) women are more attractive in art, lol, but then that's arguable too. I'm also a bit of a prude. I think couples should save it for when they are alone together. That's my opinion, and I wouldn't think of pushing that on someone else, but I'm not afraid to talk about it either.
There is no offense, if none is taken
Actually, by definition, you
Actually, by definition, you are a bigot. According to the dictionary. Bigot noun a person who is utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Now, you may not mind being a bigot. You may think there's nothing wrong with being a bigot. Still, your posts prove that you are the dictionary definition of a bigot.
I think you have to go beyond
I think you have to go beyond your listed definition of a bigot to make it stand. Think about it, are you utterly intolerant of the opinion of child molesters that it is appropriate to act ass they do ? According to your chosen definition of bigotry, being intolerant of child molestation would be considered bigotry.
"Still, your posts prove that
"Still, your posts prove that you are the dictionary definition of a bigot." - and an illiterate, uncouth, rude, moron.....
Your post proves that you do
Your post proves that you do not know the definition of illiterate.
I was referring to namvet527,
I was referring to namvet527, you self-righteous twit.
illiterate: having little or no education;
Illiterate means, literally,
Illiterate means, literally, the inability to read and write. If he is posting here then he possesses both skills.
One can be extensively educated without literacy.
It is rather interesting to see someone who is calling others, "the dictionary definition of a bigot...and an illiterate, uncouth, rude, moron....." claim that someone else is being self righteous. Particularly in response to a simple correction on word usage.
No it does not. But since you
No it does not. But since you appear to think you are an expect I won't waste any more of your time.... it would be a shame to burst that little bubble of yours.
PS - you could have avoided responding, rather than making another self-righteous post and proving my point. You might want to try just minding your own business (since the comment wasn't directed to you nor in response to you in the first place) or grow a thicker skin if you are going to get involved here.... just a suggestion since you are so willing to jump off the subject and get personal at the drop of a hat.
I don't think you know what
I don't think you know what that word, 'bigot', means.
You have a phobia of America
You have a phobia of America against gay people? Are you afraid they're better than you? What is it that you're afraid of that you can play big cock behind a computer screen?
You aren't afraid that you like to suck dick, are you? And you're proud of this? I don't think you're as bigoted as you say. I think you're a closeted gay. :) Yep! It's obvious.
E A Salierno
I agree with you Mike. No
I agree with you Mike. No one has to agree with the father's decision, for any reason at all! Call him names if it makes you feel better, but "dad's" life choices are every bit a valid as "twinkle toes"... he made his own bed, now sleep in it!
'twinkle toes' - well aren't
'twinkle toes' - well aren't you just a shining example of liberty and freedom for all...
It is the old man's money -
It is the old man's money - he can do what he wants with it.... that said - there is nothing more pathetic than someone who is still being a controlling bastard from the grave...
Oh, so true. I totally agree
Oh, so true. I totally agree with that last part. Of course I've never been left anything in a will.
There is no offense, if none is taken
If the will is declared to be
If the will is declared to be invalid, won't the estate be distributed according to the rules of intestacy? These are to be found at http://www.mystatewill.com/statutes/ny_law.php.
I expect that Mr Mandelbaum will get whatever is left of the money his father intended to leave to his grandchildren.
How sad that the only "mother" this little boy has ever been allowed to know is an unrelated male adult. Losing $60,000 is such a small loss in comparison to that fate. Isn't Mr Handlebum at all ashamed to admit such a thing?
But when he dies he will be
But when he dies he will be more fuel for HELL FIRES
as are those who are
as are those who are 'judgemental' - so be ready...
Doubtful, but the father? Oh
Doubtful, but the father? Oh yeah, STRAIGHT to hell.
Mr Mandelbaum, I meant in the
Mr Mandelbaum, I meant in the last sentence, not Mr "Handlebum" as mistyped.
Actually it is Mr. Mentalbum
Actually it is Mr. Mentalbum
These people have no shame...
These people have no shame... none at all.
'these people' - that's
'these people' - that's something that must be said about you often. Crawl back in your cave..
The actions of the deceased
The actions of the deceased father (Frank) evidence his never really having accepted his son (Robert) being gay; and the lengths to which he was willing to go and manipulate to bygod win. This is the sort of thing that happens when ignorant parents won't stop believing that being gay is a choice; and they refuse to understand what "orientation" truly means.
Frank knew exactly what he was doing, and what would happen. He wanted to be in what he considered to be the winning position of being able to say to Robert, in effect, "hey, I left you something in my will; but if you're unwilling to do what you have to do -- to do the right an honorable thing instead of living this despicable lifestyle that you're liviing -- in order to get it, then that's not MY fault! That, if that's what happens, is on YOU!" It's part of an "I will bygod rule you, or I will bygod ruin you" kind of attitude that some pathological parents have.
If Frank were still alive, Robert could say to him: "Why didn't you just leave nothing in your will and spare us all this crap? I mean, that's obviously what you intended. Why go to all this trouble and cruelly dangle this carrot, knowing full well that the money would never be conveyed?"
And the answer, of course, is because that's what pathological, manipulative parents who must win at all costs, and who will bygod control their children no matter what carnage it leaves, do. It's just what they do. Rule or ruin, rule or ruin. I know it well.
Robert should just take the position that his father left nothing, because that's exactly what Frank knew that he was doing. I know it seems like a lot of money, but in this context, it's just not worth it.
The real tragedy of it, though, is that if there were any doubt in Robert's mind about whether Frank loved his son enough to accept his sexual orientation, said doubt is now gone. What an awful legacy, left by a truly awful man, Frank Mandelbaum.
A cautionary tale, you conservative parents out there. Don't dig-in your heels until it's too late. Think about how you want to be remembered, and the gift, or not, of how you leave things with those whom you claim to love. Life's too short.
My prayers and good wishes are with Judge Mandelbaum. What a pity that he must endure all this.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
Being a homosexual and living
Being a homosexual and living like a sodomite are two different things. Poor life choices are something we have to live with. By the way, what's wrong with walking away from this inheritance?
You don't know what sodomy
You don't know what sodomy is, do you?
By the way - what's wrong
By the way - what's wrong with you? I could spell it out, but I don't curse - so impossible to describle you fully.....
Greg, in what sense can
Greg, in what sense can adopting a homosexual lifestyle not be described perfectly accurately as a "choice"? I remember rejecting that option myself early in life. Are you suggesting that I did not make that decision freely, or that others who make the opposite decision are not making their decisions equally freely? Is this determinism of yours a theistic determinism, or a materialistic determinism?
If the testator had wished to manipulate, he would have told his son what was in the will.
This looks like just another of those wills that contain conditions that seemed like a good idea to the testator when the will was made, and might have made some sense then, but which create problems many years later, when the the testator dies without amending the will in the light of subsequent developments.