[Laaw]

Well, not to be pedantic, but the article actually does say the adoption tactic failed, at least once:

> There had been an article in The Advocate about a couple in the Midwest who unsuccessfully tried to adopt each other in order to forge a legal bond.

[336f5]

"adopting each other" is meaningless and the citation is vague. Some googling of The Advocate's website suggests this is probably a reference to Baker and McConnell, where the regular adoption did succeed: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/the-same-sex-couple-who...

[Laaw]

So? The point remains the article specifically cites a situation where the adoption process fails, which directly contradicts the previous statement, and lends credence to the theory that the commenter hadn't actually read the majority of the article.

[336f5]

> The point remains the article specifically cites a situation where the adoption process fails

No, it doesn't. The article vaguely alludes to a third-hand description of the failure of a legal tactic which taken literally is nonsensical; and as far as I can tell, when those two people tried in the sensible standard manner used by everyone else (the manner in which the article is about), did succeed.

[Laaw]

> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. It literally has that, right there, in the text. As quoted, you are factually incorrect.