Jeremy Irons Wonders if Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Lead to Father-Son Unions For tax Purposes
Jeremy Irons recently opened his mouth and let a stream of disjointed thoughts about gay marriage, incest, taxes and his dog fall out of it. Asked by the Huffington Post to comment on gay marriage, he offered this: "It seems to me that now they're fighting for the [ability to take a partner's] 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 is an interesting one, because could a father not marry his son?"
The reporter pointed out that no, "there are [still] laws against incest."
But chief oddball barrister Irons had that covered. "It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us against inbreeding, but men don't breed, so incest wouldn't cover that," he said, because sure, why not. "Now if that was so, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him."
As the poor reporter attempted to mull that one over, Irons continued his legal theory musings, tossing in a wee bit of back peddling for good measure: "I think the lawyers are going to have a field day with same-sex marriage. I don't have a strong feeling either way. I just wish everyone that's living with one other person the best luck in the world, because it's fantastic," he said.
"Spoken like a happily married man," said the reporter.
Replied Irons: "Yeah, and also a man who has a dog that he loves." Um. Let's just all have a group "whachoo talkin' about, Willis" flashback here and click on, shall we ...?