Posted on 04/04/2013 5:55:16 AM PDT by magellan
Actor Jeremy Irons claims that gay marriage could lead to fathers getting married to their sons – for tax reasons.
The 64-year-old claimed he didn't have 'strong feelings' about same-sex marriage but said it could be used to allow fathers to pass estates on to sons without being taxed.
Speaking to Huffington Post Live host Josh Zepps, Irons asked: 'Could a father not marry his son?'
He claimed incest laws could not prevent it from happening because: 'It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding but men don't breed.'
(Excerpt) Read more at metro.co.uk ...
Interviewer Josh Zepps makes a weak argument, that incest laws should be enforced against gay marriage because there is a moral approbation against incest.
So it is okay for the state to restrict marriage on simply moral grounds? That is exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing against.
Gays - for years - have “adopted” their lovers as their sons. This worked out horribly for the wonderful British/American actor, George Rose.
Now there’s an argument that might win with Libs — gay marriage = less tax money to spend.
When you abandon THE definition,
all other “definitions” are arbitrary and easily argued against with the same “logic”.
Yet another problem: proving your sincerity. Currently, if you want to marry a foreigner, you have to convince the authorities that you’re not doing it just to obtain citizenship for the foreigner. According to some I’ve discussed this with, it’s gotten a lot harder to do this.
If marriage is “loosened up” to where same sex, relatives, and groups may marry, there will be a lot more tax footwork going on, and the govt will have to crack down.
Eventually people will get used to the idea that the govt gets to approve — or disapprove — your petition to marry.
Opening up marriage to gays may just lead to restricting marriage for everyone.
Many with open eyes would tell you that this was the point from the start.
I’m going to marry both my dogs and leave them my estate. And since the relationship(s?) will be sterile, there’s no inbreeding risk to be concerned about. /sarc
I think it was Thucydides who said:
“Self-control is the chief element of self-respect.”
They will lose on the moral argument.
When I heard what the triggered the Supreme Court to consider this case I understood the problem.
It’s not about sexual preference, it’s about transfer of wealth laws.
I bet SCOTUS remands this back to the states, telling them to come up with a fairer way to administer transfer of wealth.
As for the Feds, perhaps they can open the gift tax exemption to say $25,000 per year and allow life insurance inheritance benefits to be treated the same regardless of marital relationship status of the beneficiary.
In any event, this is an inheritance law case; not a sexual preference case.
Newspeak. Words mean what we say they mean.........
There are no moral absolutes.......Atlas Shrugged.....
They might just get rid of marriage.
The concepts of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are immoral.......Brave New World........
If gay marriage is marriage, then why not?
Jeremy Irons is right. The perversion of our culture will create all sorts of such relationships....
And it contributes to the spiritual sickness of our souls.
Imagine a billionaire wishing to leave their estate to a great grandchild.
Under the current tax code, that billionaire pays nothing in taxes if the money is left to a spouse.
With a 50% inheretance tax and generation skipping penalities, the following inheretance tax rates apply:
Child = 50%
Grandchild = 75%
Great grandchild = 87.5%
I’m not making a case for collecting inheritance taxes, I’m just pointing out that people will use the new “marry whatever you want” laws to circumvent them.
Outside of its ridiculous context, it’s a ridiculous argument. But now that we’re debating homosexual “marriage”, it’s a sensible argument. Not long ago a person would be laughed at for prophesying such nonsense. Now it’s not only possible, it’s probable.
No, because their goal is not really having more money, or they would cut taxes, knowing that lower taxes brings more revenue. Their goal is the destruction of our culture.
Surprised to see Irons taking the conservative view on some of these issues.
I would have taken him for a radical lib.
Good for him. He risks his career in taking some of these stands.
Not only could Dad marry his son, Dad could marry his son, daughter, cousin, and neighbor.
Furthermore, the clever entrepreneur will, for a small fee, marry ten thousand strangers who pay the small fee. In return, the ten thousand customers will receive whatever tax benefits accrue by marriage, and the health insurance coverage of the clever entrepreneur.
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.