Thursday, May 28, 2015

Look How Fast Acceleration Is Happening

In April 2013, Jeremy Irons triggered progressive outrage when he wondered whether sons could marry their fathers to get around inheritance and tax laws.

Guardian: Jeremy Irons's bizarre objection to gay marriage
The actor? Yes, that Jeremy Irons. The one with an Oscar and a penchant for bold political statements.

Such as? Describing smokers as "a minority that cannot speak back", worthy of the same protection as "handicapped people and children". Or calling the fox-hunting ban "one of the two most devastating parliamentary votes in the last century". Or arguing: "If a man puts his hand on a woman's bottom, any woman worth her salt can deal with it."

Classy. And what has he done now? Voiced a truly bizarre objection to gay marriage.

How bizarre are we talking here? Extremely, utterly and bafflingly. As bizarre as a bursar at a bazaar buying basalt for Bashar al-Assad. So bizarre it can be seen from space.

What did he say? "Tax-wise, it's an interesting one, because, you see, could a father not marry his son?"

I'm sorry? It's exactly as it sounds. Jeremy Irons is worried dads will marry their sons. For tax reasons.

Does he think that mums marry their sons for tax reasons at the moment? No, of course he doesn't.

Because? Because there are laws against that kind of thing.

May 2015: Once 'Father' and 'Son,' Now a Married Couple
A couple who were legally father and son for the last fifteen years had their adoption vacated and were married this week after 52 years together.

...“When we moved to Pennsylvania, we had both retired and we were of the age where one begins to do estate planning,” MacArthur tells Yahoo Parenting. “We went to a lawyer who told us Pennsylvania was never going to allow same-sex marriage, so the only legal avenue we had in order to be afforded any rights was adoption.”

MacArthur says he thought the suggestion was strange at first. “It struck me as fairly unusual, but we looked into it and discovered that other couples had done it. [Without the adoption] we would be legally strangers.” An adoption would grant the couple certain legal rights they felt compelled to secure.
Oh, they weren't really father and son see, so it isn't the same thing.....and yet legally they were father and son.

There would be laws against mothers marrying sons due to the risk of pregnancy. I doubt there is any law against father and son getting married because like gay marriage, there would be no law covering something that never before existed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri

Blog Archive