Jeremy Irons was quoted as saying:
"It’s a very interesting one, that, and I don’t really have a strong feeling, but what I see … what we had in England, which was not marriage, but it was a union you could make if you were gay and you wanted to make a civil partnership … same rights but not the name … it seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name, and I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that. I mean tax-wise it’s an interesting one, because you see, could a father not marry his son?"Zepps responded that there are laws against incest.
Irons, not to be deterred, said:
"It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that. Now if that were so, and I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son, and pass on my estate to him."Zepps: That sounds like a total red herring. I’m sure that incest law would cover same sex marriages.
Irons: "Really? Why?"
Zepps: "cause I don’t think incest law is only justified on the basis of the consequences of procreation. I think there’s also a moral approbation associated with incest."
I especially like the charming naivete of the Zepps guy who clomped so earnestly back into the debate by announcing that there are laws against that. HA! That's the whole point dumdum! There are laws!
I don't know how you feel about