Are you accusing your parents of being bigots?

When I was a young adult, I got into prospective marriage relationships with two non-Jewish women. One my parents hated and more or less chased out of the house. The other, they urged me to bring her home again and again.

In subsequent relationships, one Jewish girl I lived with for 3 years, they really didn't like. And, the first time my daughter of holocaust survivors wife visited my parents, my mother ranted about how she would disown me if I married her.

I married her and my mother got over her objections.

Its obvious that you are angry about something, and that you bring your comparison of your unexpectedly accepting in-laws with your parents, here frequently.

Please don't use my words as a straw dog, Phil to draw a divide. I'm sorry if I presumed about your parents reactions, rather than ask you personally.

"1.3 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007.

Meanwhile, billions of YOUR tax dollars continue to purchase beautiful new homes and subsidized mortgages … IN ISRAEL."

Something for the delegates to read in their hotel rooms.

http://cnifoundation.org

(Richard, shouldn't you be packing for your aliyah?)

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/rick_macarthur_you_cant_be_president

Curiously, Swaythling combined a rigid orthodoxy in religion and authoritarianism in family life with an advanced Liberalism in politics. Curiously, too, Edwin Samuel Montagu was strongly anti-Zionist and an opponent of the Balfour Declaration. This put him at odds with his first cousin, Herbert Samuel, who was also in the Cabinet and went on to serve as High Commissioner of Palestine.

he earned his money and ought to be able to will it in anyway he believed was proper for him.

maybe if the left takes over in america and some form of marxism gains favor the govt can look to you and appoint you as living will and living trust tsar.

whats wrong with the proponents of political correctness?
why do they want to impose their will on others rights?
who is intolerant in this case? is it the man who wants to distribute his hard earned wealth to whomever he sees fit based on his preferences for lifestyles?

or is it those who will not tolerate his right to endow his wealth to whomever he wishes?

what if he willed his wealth to catlovers of america and some doglovers of america group objected and brought a legal objection on the grounds that because he didnt leave any money to doglovers he ought to be labeled a doghater-criminal and sought to have his will invalidated?

what the heck is wrong with america?

So anonymous.

It is your money and your will, and you can choose to write anything you like in it. It is up to heirs to decide if they are going to comply. If they do not comply, then they do not get to keep the money.

I am not sure how the money were approportioned in the Feinberg case, but it is likely, that with some heirs eliminated, those who performed according to the old man's script were entitled to a larger pot of money.

Of course the ethnocentric aspect of the will feels distastefull for some in those days of equality of races. But if you are censoring this will, then what should we do about legacies to David Duke, or to leftist/anarchist/anti-war in Iran/"anti-semitic" think tanks? Do we really want to start overturning wills on the basis of our interpretation of what racism is?

As long as death duties were paid, the eccentricity of the rich should be allowed to stand.

Funds for a public park that excludes minorities.

A scholarship fund, but one that is available only to white people.

To future heirs except only those that marry white people.

We go through that list and the first one is obvious and so is the second. But the third is very close to the case under consideration.

And then this one is a no-brainer:

Charities run by Hamas or Hezbollah.

Would they support such a clause cutting out people who married a different race?

Some contracts are deemed against the public good and not enforceable. Most such clauses involve race.

LOTS of wills and deeds back in the days tried to restrict title from passing to Jews. Such clauses were struck down.

I am very surprised that such a case was not already litigated in the other direction.