Brother and sister fight to wed (Australia)

news.com.au ^ | 2/20/04

[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?"

[bicycle thug]

let them=make them

[muir_redwoods]

"Brother and sister fight to wed..."

"Coming soon to a courthouse near you!!

[Scenic Sounds]

Let them do what they will.

Who said anything about a will?

If a brother and sister, unrelated by blood, can get married, then why can't a Chihuaha be bred with a Great Dane?

[Bonaparte]

"There was an Aussie who married his TV a few months ago."

Why not? He's got no taste, even if she's a 40" with the best reception, but he could have made a worse choice. She'll never be much of a conversationalist but maybe he doesn't care. Me? I've been happily married to my computer for 10 years.

[concerned about politics]

They love each other.

That's what they all say. NAMBLA - pedophile homosexuals say they "love" their victims, homos getting married in SF, incests, polygamists.
If adoption makes one legally a sibling, why can't real siblings then marry? Wouldn't that be the next step? According to law, adopted children are equal to legitimate children.
There's strange people in this world. I understand your "non blood" argument, but doors would be opened that should really remain shut.

[gcruse]

Indeed, why not? It turns out that marrying your cousin isn't that big a deal, either, and is now recognized in most states.

[Finalapproach29er]

No. It'll be consent age for gays. The london libs have got it down to 15 or 16.

Gays like the cute young ones that they can defile.

This country is decending into hell.IMO

[CommandoFrank]

Let's see... The father is the uncle of his kids and the mother is the aunt for her kids.

That means the fathers grandchildren will be his great niece or nephew, depending on their sex and...........

This could get very complex!

[bicycle thug]

First of all NAMBLA is a criminal organization sanctioning pedophilia. These people are not pedophiles, they are unrelated and of the opposite sex.

If laws are so inflexible that only the P.C. enforcement of them are understood and sanctioned, than humanity has lost a big piece of it's soul.

You are wrong, your train of logic derailed and convoluted, and their is a mean spirited almost vengeful tone to it.

These good folks do not deserve to be scapegoats for percieved social crimes of others.

[bicycle thug]

Their's' is not a relationship of blood. Nullify the sibling status and give them a clean slate. Just because their parents married each other after their respective births does not warrant their punishment in this matter.

They have done no crime, and this should not be compounded into a third generation by forcing bastard status on their young.

One thing troubling me is that this strange interpretation of law is do people think it would be OK for their offspring to marry as their parents were denied this preoperative? I mean, they are not technically related as their parents would not be married, right?

Common sense is what the law is supposed to be based on. But what I hear argued is that common sense should be twisted into a pretzel by the law.

This is wrong and illogical people. I just don't understand how people in FR could lament PC thinking in so many cases, and then defend it in this one.

[CommandoFrank]

This is wrong and illogical people. I just don't understand how people in FR could lament PC thinking in so many cases, and then defend it in this one.

Ref your tag "I'm just a Pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity", you're on the wrong pant leg, Jocko... I'm agreeing with you. Maybe you sent your response to the wrong guy???

[bicycle thug]

The last post is not specifically addressed to you Frank. Sorry I didn't reflect that in the 'To' box.

I simply had more to say after punching off the post before it.

Thanks for the feedback.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As long as it's true love, it's OK. /sarcasm

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Jesus, please return to Earth soon

One of my favorite songs has a line that goes like this:

We all cry "Come Lord"...and he says "Soon"

[RightWingAtheist]

Naw, this will be next:

[freebacon]

This thread raises a valid point and a potential flaw in the Left's case. The argument of incestuous relationships should be brought up in the case of San Fransisco rather that polygamy.

[Arkinsaw]

They are only brother and sister in the eyes of the state. There is no moral situation since they were not raised together and are not blood relatives. This is a purely administrative/bureaucratic interference over their lives.

The state has a valid interest in keeping blood relatives from marrying, but to extend that to a valid interest in keeping a man and woman unrelated by blood who were not raised together from marrying is silliness.

[null and void]

The state has a valid interest in keeping blood relatives from marrying

These days anyway.

Cleopatra's parents were siblings, their parents were siblings, their parents were siblings, and their parents were siblings...

Gotta keep that royal blood line pure...

[Tall_Texan]

It was a great marriage until one day she got her tubes tied...

[Tall_Texan]

Common sense is what the law is supposed to be based on.

Never been to Washington, D.C., have you?