Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brother and sister fight to wed (Australia)
news.com.au ^ | 2/20/04

Posted on 02/20/2004 4:19:44 PM PST by knak

A WEST Australian couple who are brother and sister by adoption, but unrelated by blood, are battling a federal law that prevents their marrying.

Kevin and Deborah Jefferies have been in love for at least 10 years and want to get married.

But under the Federal Marriage Act 1961, which prevents brothers and sisters marrying, their relationship is taboo.

The couple became siblings on paper when their parents married and Kevin's father adopted Deborah and her sisters.

"There's so many people who can get divorced so easily – we can't even get married to start with," Kevin told Channel 7.

"If you love somebody, you marry them . . . it's more than just a piece of paper."

As children, Kevin and Deborah Jefferies lived in separate homes.

Although Deborah, at 17, refused Kevin's first proposal, fearing it would upset their parents, the couple only formally discovered they were forbidden from marrying one another after Deborah fell pregnant with their first child.

"We went to the Births, Deaths and Marriages to find out what was going on. He (the adviser) said we can have as many children as we want, we just can't marry legally," Deborah, now a mother of three, said.

"Just because we have the same surname it shouldn't mean we can't get married."

The couple said they had written to federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock asking for special consideration.

"We're just trying to do it quietly – just for ourselves," Kevin said.

"If first cousins can get married, why can't Deborah and I?"


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: culturalsuicide; homosexualagenda; incest; lawrencevtexas; marriage; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
What the heck will be next? Marrying your dog?
1 posted on 02/20/2004 4:19:44 PM PST by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: knak
They should come to San Francisco.
2 posted on 02/20/2004 4:22:41 PM PST by demnomo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demnomo
Don't publish it! They probably will!
3 posted on 02/20/2004 4:23:15 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knak
Considering that they are NOT blood relatives, I don't see the harm in legitimizing their three children. If they WERE blood-related, then no, they should not marry.
4 posted on 02/20/2004 4:24:03 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
I do! I am adopted and so is my brother. I think it's sick!
5 posted on 02/20/2004 4:25:06 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: knak; Cathryn Crawford; gcruse
Although Deborah, at 17, refused Kevin's first proposal, fearing it would upset their parents, the couple only formally discovered they were forbidden from marrying one another after Deborah fell pregnant with their first child.

Another Cultural Suicide Ping!

6 posted on 02/20/2004 4:25:14 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
What the heck will be next? Marrying your dog?

My first impression as well, from the headline, but since they have no blood ties at all, I don't see it as being all that bad. I mean, what is the real reason for their not being allowed to marry? The are oposite sex, and no real relation except via adoption.

Sorry, can't equate this with the travesty occuring in San Fran and marrying one's dog.

7 posted on 02/20/2004 4:25:38 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demnomo
SF will probably come to them. Mayor Newsom is probably boarding a jet right now.
8 posted on 02/20/2004 4:26:03 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knak
This is a Very Brady Dilemma.
9 posted on 02/20/2004 4:26:28 PM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Did you agree with Woody marrying his stepdaughter?
10 posted on 02/20/2004 4:26:30 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: knak
....Deborah fell pregnant with their first child.

She fell pregnant!?   I fell sick once...I hope I don't ever fall pregnant.

11 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:00 PM PST by jigsaw (Liberal Bias is Dishonorable Discharge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds; gcruse
I love the deep, dark drama of a wooden figure majestically stabbing himself with what appears to be a pole. It's Shakespeare-worthy.
12 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:23 PM PST by Cathryn Crawford (¿Podemos ahora sonreír?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: knak
What the heck will be next? Marrying your dog?

Sure. What are you? Some kind of beastaphobe?
You need to become more progressive. Fetish marriage is the "in" thing now.

Actually, if homos can marry, why not brother and sister? It's closer to normal. I'd have thought that would come before homosexuals.
Even polygamists are more normal than homosexuals.
Why not anything? Who's to be the judge?
My guess is the rest of the fetishist are just waiting for the homos to get them their rights. They're letting them pay the legal fees. Once anything can marry, they'll be coming in to wed in droves.

13 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:30 PM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
To further clarify, I think it should be strongly discouraged .. but making it illegal?
14 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:44 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: knak
There was an Aussie who married his TV a few months ago.... :o
15 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:48 PM PST by BossLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn; knak
I agree....and they were NOT even raised together. They were nearly adults already when they fell in love. The law is obtuse and needs to be defined more clearly.
16 posted on 02/20/2004 4:28:12 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
It's known as seppuku, in this case, cultural seppuku!
17 posted on 02/20/2004 4:29:29 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
No, because she was underage, NOT because she was his step-daughter.
18 posted on 02/20/2004 4:29:48 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
I only saw where it states that aat 17 her brother first proposed to her. When did they "fall for each other"?
19 posted on 02/20/2004 4:30:56 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
It's known as seppuku, in this case, cultural seppuku!

Another language? I don't think I can handle it!

20 posted on 02/20/2004 4:31:16 PM PST by Cathryn Crawford (¿Podemos ahora sonreír?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
How old was she?
21 posted on 02/20/2004 4:33:01 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: knak
Jesus, please return to Earth soon.
22 posted on 02/20/2004 4:33:09 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
It's obvious that your mind is securely made up, and I see no point in continuing the discussion, because YOU won't change MY mind.

Have a nice evening.
23 posted on 02/20/2004 4:33:11 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
As "Dueling Banjos" plays in the background...

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

24 posted on 02/20/2004 4:33:28 PM PST by mhking (My gravely throat feels like it's been attacked with a rusty rasp....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
And my dog can be my step-grandpa cuz he's major league infatuated with my mom.
25 posted on 02/20/2004 4:34:06 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
I guess we now know why Bill held Chelsea's hand as he did, 'cause they're not related by blood either...
26 posted on 02/20/2004 4:34:25 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("We deal in hard calibers and hot lead." - Roland Deschaines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
What the heck will be next? Marrying your dog?

They are not blood-related. Give them a chance.

27 posted on 02/20/2004 4:34:54 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Eggs....they grew up in the same house as brother and sister. Nope, no way.
28 posted on 02/20/2004 4:35:09 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
Did you agree with Woody marrying his stepdaughter?

One doesn't have to agree with someone's action, to say they are legal or illegal. What Woody did was pretty immoral, immature, stupid and indecent ... but was it unhealthy? (as in marrying your own blood daughter) - No ...

And even Woody's stupid move is far far worse than what these two adopted teenagers are doing.

29 posted on 02/20/2004 4:35:14 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: knak
I think it's sick!

Why?

30 posted on 02/20/2004 4:36:24 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: knak
Why is it sick? The prohibition against blood relatives marrying is based on sound scientific facts about the consequences of inbreeding.

They love each other and many people go through life without the blessing of finding that special person. I say give them the marriage license and be done with it.

This is in the tradition of the worse P.C. no tolerance thinking that gets a child who points a finger at another on the playground and says, "Bang!" sent home suspended for bringing up the topic of guns in school.

We are thinking rational beings who can weigh reasons and consequences to determine if something should or shouldn't be allowed. No genetic consequences, they are going to be together as man or wife regardless of the law, and the law in this case is causing harm and not protecting anything.
31 posted on 02/20/2004 4:36:27 PM PST by bicycle thug (I'm just a Pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
Wrong, KBR.

"As children, Kevin and Deborah Jefferies lived in separate homes."


Read the article.
32 posted on 02/20/2004 4:36:49 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
You weren't far off.
33 posted on 02/20/2004 4:37:50 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Wow. Can you spin!
34 posted on 02/20/2004 4:38:22 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
If they WERE blood-related, then no, they should not marry.

All bets are off now.

35 posted on 02/20/2004 4:39:30 PM PST by Howlin (A Loyal Member of EggsAckley's Troll Patrol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BossLady
If my crock pot had tits and could give head i would divorce the wife and marry it!!!
36 posted on 02/20/2004 4:39:48 PM PST by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Argus
This is a Very Brady Dilemma.

Wh00p!!

37 posted on 02/20/2004 4:40:19 PM PST by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Interesting.
38 posted on 02/20/2004 4:40:49 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Eggs, I wasn't trying to change your mind at all. I'm curious as to how old they were when they became brother/sister. That seems to be the problem with the story. Atleast with me. My brother and I are both adopted from different families, but we were raised together. I would agree there would be an enormous difference IF they were not very young when they became brother/sister. Did that make sense?

I'm sorry. Don't mean to offend anyone but there's just no way I would ever think about marrying my brother.

39 posted on 02/20/2004 4:40:52 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
But it must have been hard keeping Janet Reno away from her...
40 posted on 02/20/2004 4:41:20 PM PST by Miles Vorkosigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
OMG....LMAO! Does your wife know about this? ;)
41 posted on 02/20/2004 4:42:05 PM PST by BossLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
ROFL!!
42 posted on 02/20/2004 4:42:29 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Miles Vorkosigan
Actually, I think Janet is Chelsea's blood-father...
43 posted on 02/20/2004 4:42:34 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("We deal in hard calibers and hot lead." - Roland Deschaines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
I would need more info than that one statement, but I will still think it is wrong.
44 posted on 02/20/2004 4:43:47 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BossLady
course not...i haven't been married to the same lady for 33 years by being completely stupid lol
45 posted on 02/20/2004 4:44:14 PM PST by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BossLady
There was an Aussie who married his TV a few months ago.... :o

A wife that "gets" ESPN and has a mute button? Pure genius.

I keed. I keed.

46 posted on 02/20/2004 4:44:18 PM PST by bootyist-monk (5, 4, 3, 2, 1! Thunderbirds are go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
DAY-um!
47 posted on 02/20/2004 4:44:38 PM PST by JoJo Gunn (Intellectuals exist only if you believe they do. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: knak
No apology necessary.

from the article:

"As children, Kevin and Deborah Jefferies lived in separate homes."

It IS interesting that nowhere in the article does it state their current age. I have the feeling that they are NOT teenagers, but rather are in their twenties, and have been together for a number of years.
48 posted on 02/20/2004 4:45:24 PM PST by EggsAckley ({....YES... I AM THE HATED......troll patrol.....(on duty).....})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Considering that they are NOT blood relatives, I don't see the harm in legitimizing their three children. If they WERE blood-related, then no, they should not marry.

If one uses the biological argument (inbreeding), then I would agree. If one uses the social argument, then I would not agree: It is a bad thing for children growing up to be regarded by others in the home as potential sexual targets.

49 posted on 02/20/2004 4:45:32 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bicycle thug
They love each other and many people go through life without the blessing of finding that special person. I say give them the marriage license and be done with it.

The problem is incrementalism. Blood relatives will demand their rights, because adoption is a legal document that says parents are parents, and siblings are siblings.
If this were to pass, the definition of "adoption" would have to change, just like the homos are trying to change the meaning of "marriage."
Adoption would no longer be adoption, marriage no longer marriage.

50 posted on 02/20/2004 4:46:13 PM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson