Skip to comments.Actor Jeremy Irons: gay ‘marriage’ could lead to father-son unions to avoid estate taxes
Posted on 04/11/2013 6:26:45 AM PDT by IbJensen
LONDON, U.K., April 10, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) Academy Award-winning actor Jeremy Irons told HuffPost Live last week that he worries a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples could lead to abuses of the institution, including marriages between fathers and their sons.
It seems to me that now [gay activsts are] fighting for the name, Irons told HuffPo Live host Josh Zepps. I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.
Zepps asked Irons about his views on gay marriage during an interview about the Showtime series The Borgias, in which Irons plays the role of a pope. While Irons said he had no strong feelings either way on the issue, he did worry that unscrupulous people could use a redefinition of marriage to their advantage at societys expense.
Tax wise, its an interesting one, because, you see, could a father not marry his son? Irons asked Zepps.
When Zepps countered that laws against incest should prevent such unions, Irons disagreed.
Click "like" if you support true marriage.
It's not incest between men, he said. Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding. But men dont breed so incest wouldn't cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.
After Irons comments were widely circulated online and mocked by liberal commentators, the actor posted an open letter on his official website addressing the interview. He denied criticism that he is anti-gay, saying instead he simply wanted to have an honest discussion about the potential unintended consequences of a redefinition of marriage.
I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of Marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners, Irons wrote. Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non-reproductive relationships).
He admitted his example was mischievous, but said it was nonetheless valid.
Same-sex marriage is a hot issue in both the U.K., where Irons resides, and in the U.S., where HuffPo Live is based. In the U.K., parliament is debating a bill recently passed by the House of Commons that would officially redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. In the U.S., the Supreme Court is debating whether to strike down a federal ban on same-sex marriage, thereby legitimizing the unions of homosexual couples who have married in the nine states where it is legal and allowing them to receive federal benefits based on marital status. More than 1,100 U.S. benefits depend on marital status, including estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees.
Go against God's Word and everything goes to hell!
Interesting thought. Would that be legal in SS marriage states like Maryland and NY?
Probably. Eventually a male or female ‘human’ will be able to marry a goat or a turtle.
I’m all for it. LOL. The irony is too rich. Obama lowers the estate tax threshold to $3 million NOT indexed for inflation...USSC kills DOMA....voila...liberals, no more estate taxes.
Before we get too excited, there are incest laws. Perhaps that is the next court challenge.
And why not?
Homosexuals are not legally barred from marriage (in most places, anyway) as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex.
There would appear to be no logical or juristic reason that heterosexuals could not enter into a same-sex “marriage” if such were legal.
More unintended consequences of liberal social engineering.
Anything that reduces the amount of money the government strips from citizens and the economy gives the people the last laugh.
I hereby define Nixon’s Law: For every taxtion, there is an equal and opposite reaction (loophole).
The position of those pushing for homosexual "marriage" is that any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry.
I love my mother, my mother loves me.
How dare the state stand between us!!!
There are already potential loopholes.
For example, two wealthy old men with roughly equal assets could agree to marry each other’s granddaughters.
GLBTXYZ....it’s getting hard to keep up with modern society.
You are absolutely right.
The gay marriage “debate” is not only insane and irrational — Not REASONED—as all Just Laws have to be-—but it erases all standards of Right and Wrong— so that every arbitrary law can be “right”.
The reason the Leftist/pagans/atheists/Satanists want this-—is it will destroy Judeo-Christian Ethics. Totally removes them from the minds of the next generation. Lenin did the same thing-—forced babies into Day Care so their worldview would be the State’s indoctrination and mothers would be meaningless in the transfer of “worldview” so it was easy to “erase” God in one generation.
Thousands of years of societal norms and moral behavior down the tubes.
It’s amazing how on the surface they say it is about love, but it really is just about money and benefits.
Wait until the backlash starts, Jeremy
Wasn’t the whole point of “civil unions” to protect benefits and assets? Now, of course, they are asking for more and more “rights” - even if it turns the whole country upside down.
It is all about power and prestige.
Unnatural in that it goes against the law of biology, or even simply logic. Lincoln once said this about definition. How many dogs have? Four. Just because you call a a tail a leg doesnt make it one.
And the sad thing is, after reading his responses, they seem rational and measured. He's actually thought about the negative consequences, and has (seemingly) politely expressed his opinion.
It is undoubtedly not a popular Hollywood opinion however; whether or not he's successful enough not to care, or whether he doesn't need the work, remains to be seen.
I agree that marital status should not be a criteria for wealth transfer.
Come up with a better tax law, but leave the family alone.
I thought that living trusts solved problems like this from happening. If I create a trust that owns all of my assets, I name who gets said assets upon my death, no questions asked. Am I missing something?
First states should remove restrictions like marrying to cousins or incest etc. from marriage certificate requirement.
I’m marring my cat...not...: )
I agree. How many dogs have, versus how many dogs have not.
I’ve made this very same argument with my more liberal friends and they also toss up the “incest” canard. Frankly, I hope to see this “loophole” exploited everywhere homo-”marriage” is legal.
Gee. That reminds me of the old joke about the Bill Clinton and another guy discussing their sex lives.
Clinton said that he had sex with a woman, a dog, a horse, a sheep, a cat and a chicken.
“A chicken? How did you accomplish that?”
I’ll withhold the punch line because you probably remember the joke and this is sort of a family-oriented website.
Roll everything back to 1912. No IRS no tons of regulations.
A trust is a device to transfer assets in order to avoid PROBATE. Similar to having a designated beneficiary to your IRA. It is not a device to avoid or reduce ESTATE TAXES assuming your estate is greater than $5.25 million.
A lawyer called in to the Howie Carr show to make that exact point. He said that Massachusetts law prohibitions on consanguinity only specify Father-daughter, Mother-son (as well as sister-brother), and have not been amended. He actually advised clients that they should not overlook the possibility of such marriages as a way to shelter inheritances, though he didn’t necessarily recommend them.
Estate taxes violate Constitutional private property rights . . . IMHO . . . and when income tax rates reach a point, they do, too.
I've got news for Jeremy Irons. Marriage is being debased and changed when this liberal government allows and sanctifies homosexual relationships as marriage.
Everybody assumes incorrectly that marriage between close relatives and sexual relations between close relatives are the same thing. They are two seperate issues. Two relatives who marry, hypothetically for now, may never lay a hand on each other, the purpose of the marriage was for estate planning only.
And to your goals I would add social/societal domination.
Lincoln had Common Sense......he didn’t go to public school indoctrination centers-—he was self-educated-—not “mass conditioned” by Billy Ayers sick curricula.
There is no Reason is “homosexual” marriage-—Just Laws HAVE to be “Reasoned”.
This is what Ayn Rand was complaining about in the 60’s-—that Marxism is irrational -—socialism is irrational and not “reasoned”.
We need to restore-—as Cicero stated: “Right Reason according to Nature” which determines “Justice”-—put it BACK into US Laws.
Irrational “thinking” (Marxism) was inserted into our legal system by Oliver W. Holmes, jr. Progressives ruined our “Justice” system and made it a joke and now it actually mocks Justice now.