US soldier leaves behind 2 wives -3 sons

US soldier leaves behind 2 wives -3 sons

www.examiner.com

Spc. Moises Gonzalez, 29, died in battle in Afghanistan on April 25, when the vehicle he was riding in rolled over, but a battle at home appears to be just beginning.

Gonzalez leaves behind two wives and three sons; one son by each wife and another by a third woman, as yet unnamed.

Both of Gonzalez’s wives attended his funeral yesterday in Huntington, California, sharing front row seats at the service. Reports indicate neither wife knew of the other’s existence.

Wife Number One, Darlene Garcia whom Gonzalez married in 2003, appears to be the odds-on-favorite for receiving Gonz

(visit the link for the full news article)

Im not sure how I feel about this one at all. Two Wife's And no lawyers might not be a bad thing at all. ( I jest )
It is sad I n many ways of course and I hope that every thing will work out for the best for everyone here . I am really hopeing humanity will end this crap soon. Anyway , It is what It is I suppose.

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

There really isn't a contest.

You can only claim one person as your wife. The wife outlined in his record will be the one receiving the benefits (along with any underage dependents he's claimed).

The SGLI is a little bit of a different story - but, once again - it goes to the listed beneficiary. It is not uncommon in the military for some young buck to put his new girlfriend of two weeks on his SGLI - then get KIA or die in some other accident... and she gets the life insurance; despite the family raising hell.

You can split the beneficiaries - my brothers will be receiving half of mine, each, if I end up dying. But if I get married and don't change that (then die) - my brothers will get the life insurance and she will get "nothing."

Things get a little more complicated when you get into bank accounts, final pay-checks (such as my Per-diem and base pay), and assets of the estate... but that comes down to who you have listed as your beneficiary, TOD, etc (mostly on bank accounts).

This is why wills are important, people. My father didn't have one when he died - and it created all kinds of hell when making decisions about my brothers (technically - the state was the only one with authority over them at the time). Having one on file to delegate your assets and dependents is a very, very good idea. It makes their life so much easier and keeps feuds to a minimum (though there will always be some in-fighting).

Ummmm... whoops!
I hope this soldier realizes he could get prison time for something like this.
I guess this might be the better of the possible outcomes as I would never wish to go to prison.
I agree with Aim64, the name on the paper is the winner.

reply to post by g146541


I hope this soldier realizes he could get prison time for something like this.





The soldier is dead...

reply to post by g146541


I don't think the guy is worried about prison time now.

The first wife will get all the benefits when it comes to the military unless he specified differently which I doubt. The only real legal issue I can see here is the fact the other wife maybe able to go to court and demand a portion of the life insurance due to the fact she has a son with the man.

This is just an ugly situation that will have no winners in the end. I feel bad for the kids more then anything, in the end they lost a dad which no amount of money can replace.

LOL did the last 2 posters skip G's 3rd line?

I guess this might be the better of the possible outcomes as I would never wish to go to prison.

LOL and the 2 to 3 people who starred them? LMAO

reply to post by Forevever


LMFAO!! you know I read that and didnt think about it LOL

reply to post by jenlovesturtles

The only real legal issue I can see here is the fact the other wife maybe able to go to court and demand a portion of the life insurance due to the fact she has a son with the man.

The court will tell her to go get bent. Who the stated beneficiary of the life insurance is gets the life insurance. Period. No arguments. The only time this comes into question is when the beneficiary is deceased. At which time, the life insurance goes into the estate, and the courts will decide how the estate is to be divided (usually all assets are liquidated and balanced against outstanding debts then divided equally amongst surviving children or to court conservatorships pending their legal adulthood); after the probate fees are exacted (10-15%, depending).

The best she can hope for is to plea for spousal benefits - such as Commissary privileges, Tricare coverage, etc.

So - there really isn't much of a question, here. It's just going to be an ugly process of putting these women in their place.

reply to post by jenlovesturtles


LOL its not funny! This a sad thread :X

I'm being good - I want to express my condolences to the Mrs's.... missuses... whatevers.

If I was one of them I wouldn't care much about the benefits, I'd just be mad at how I had to find out, and that he cheated, and well I don't know. More things would strike me wrongly than who gets his benefits.

reply to post by Forevever


Like I said I think the kids suffer the most. As one of his wives I would be wondering how many more wives he had that I wasnt aware of...I.E. overseas or even across the country.

personally, I do not see a problem with having multiple wives. In the past this was very common, and usually the first wife was the leader or main wife.

If we are tolerant to homosexual relationships why can't we be tolerant to a relationship with more than one spouse?

reply to post by tw0330

personally, I do not see a problem with having multiple wives. In the past this was very common, and usually the first wife was the leader or main wife.

This was also when the mortality rate of young males was very high due to types of labor and war.

Though I do like the implication that some men should not be allowed to so much as touch a woman, let alone breed.

One of the big obstacles to this in the modern society is the genetically determined sex ratio. Humans will, for the foreseeable biological future, live in a 1:1 male-female ratio (barring some kind of cultural selection - such as what we see in China).

If we are tolerant to homosexual relationships why can't we be tolerant to a relationship with more than one spouse?

Honestly - I don't think it's really a good idea in the society we live in, currently. That doesn't mean I am intolerant of it - or that I believe it should be an issue of the government (I believe the term "marriage" should be abolished in favor of having various tax and power-of-attorney statuses that can be entered into via contract).

It's not an inherently bad family structure... it just doesn't normally work out very well. Many women just do not like the idea of playing second fiddle (or any feelings of playing second fiddle; whether justified or imagined). It tends to require too much subjugation of women in modern societies.

Add to that some of the horror stories coming out of regions of the nation that force women into polygamous lifestyles... and the public has very few good examples to work with.

Originally posted by tw0330
personally, I do not see a problem with having multiple wives. In the past this was very common, and usually the first wife was the leader or main wife.

If we are tolerant to homosexual relationships why can't we be tolerant to a relationship with more than one spouse?

NO. Not ever!!!! And personally, they're financial concerns aren't irrelevant, either.

Both of Gonzalez’s wives attended his funeral yesterday in Huntington, California, sharing front row seats at the service. Reports indicate neither wife knew of the other’s existence.

Wife Number One, Darlene Garcia whom Gonzalez married in 2003, appears to be the odds-on-favorite for receiving Gonz

(visit the link for the full news article)





a preferred/favorite order of wives, even

RIP player

Originally posted by tw0330


If we are tolerant to homosexual relationships why can't we be tolerant to a relationship with more than one spouse?

i dont see the logic.

i mean, is a homosexual equal to two persons or something??

The man did an injustice being in the military, knowing he was daily risking death, and not providing adequately for both wives in the event of such a death. Other than that, there is not much can be said, he is dead.

Definitely not the first time this sort of thing has happened. On the other hand, during WW2 (and probably in WW1) there were instances of stateside women marrying more than one soldier, juggling multiple identities, in anticipation of one or more being killed in action so they could inherit the military life insurance and other benefits.

About 20 years the Veterans Administration was confronted with a case, and not the first of its kind, where a veteran had engaged in serial marriages; marrying someone, leaving, moving, marrying someone else, again and again, without bothering to get a divorce. Evidently the various wives were not aware of each other, or at least not aware of their predecessors. When he died, some of the wives learned of his death and filed for the widows benefits as the "lawful surviving spouse".

To resolve the question - there being something more than a dozen wives shown by the paperwork - the VA had to do additional investigation -- identifying and locating each wife, getting the paperwork on the marriage, checking on common law marriage laws in specific states, etc. -- and then create a timeline of marriages. A couple of the wives had gone to the trouble of getting divorced from this guy after he pulled his disappearing act, at least one wife had predeceased him, so all these had to be sorted out. The result depended on some of those investigative details, which would not have been known otherwise. The wives who had gone to the trouble of obtaining a divorce were out of the running for widow's benefits - that was obvious, but what was not so obvious is that, at least one of those divorces (which took place without the veteran knowing of it, since he had already moved on) had the effect of legitimizing a subsequent coupling under the common law marriage laws so that this guy had been legally married to a woman he might have thought he wasn't legally married to. It turned out that two or three of his marriages were considered binding and legal at a time when this guy probably thought they couldn't be, but then a wife died or got a divorce and another coupling got to be legal. The VA finally settled on one of the later wives, but not the last in the parade, as the "lawful surviving spouse".

reply to post by BiggerPicture


Well, everyone asks for equal rights, for all religions, sexual orientations, and race. So why can't a person who wishes to have multiple wives (or sister wife) get those same equal rights? No I'm not mormon, but I do believe they have the right to marry multiple people.

I look at it this way, you have over 50% of marriages failing these days, and cheating is at an all time high.

People cry for gay and lesbian rights, but what about the bisexual, don't you feel they have the same rights?

No I am not bisexual or gay, but if the issue is going to be sexual orientation rights, then let's give all sexual orientations the same rights.