Marriage of twins fuels adoption row

London Telegraph ^ | 11/01/2008 | Gordon Rayner

[Aristotelian]

Twins who were separated at birth have married each other, unaware that they were brother and sister.

Each had been adopted by a different family, with neither being told they had a twin.

A High Court judge annulled the marriage after the couple discovered they were siblings, the House of Lords has been told.

The judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed.

The couple's identities, along with details of how they met and fell in love, remain a closely-guarded secret.

But the cross-bench peer Lord Alton, who told the Lords the case had been revealed to him by the judge involved, said the pair had felt an "inevitable attraction".

He raised the case to illustrate the need for adopted children to be given full access to their birth records during a debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill last month.

[HawaiianGecko]

   "Didn’t I hear this one from A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away..."

LOL, that's good!

[luckystarmom]

They may not have looked alike. Fraternal twins look just as similar/different as other siblings. I look nothing like one of my brothers.

[valkyrieanne]

The gov’t is out of line here. We don’t have any genetic tests for marrying - if two recessive-gene carriers marry (Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, etc.) they have a 25% chance of having a seriously or even terminally ill child. Yet they aren’t forbidden.

[mtairycitizen]

I had the same thought as you did. SOmething fishy here. A stunt with an agenda perhaps.

[originalbuckeye]

Likely.

[BlackVeil]

I remember my Mom telling the hard “facts-of-life” that I couldn’t marry my cousin when I was 11. There are natural laws that prevent this coupling in all societies.

But in many societies the marriage of cousins is allowed - in some, it is even favoured.

[gracesdad]

“I believe sperm donation is just adultery without the human contact;selfish women love it,I suppose.”

One of the more absurd comments I’ve read in a long time. Ranks right up there with the opinion that having sex with your wife while using contraception is as bad as no homosexual sex.

[redheadtoo]

Frankly, I’m a little skeptical of the story. This has the ring of an urban myth to it.

[gracesdad]

no homosexual sex = homosexual sex

[Antoninus]

Well, gee, the exact same logic that’s applied by homo-marriage advocates could be applied to let these two marry each other. After all, it’s only the “love” that counts. Everything else is secondary.

[dayglored]

> Maybe I’m way off base, but I am not convinced destroying the marrital relationship is the best thing here. These two met innocently, developed a relationship and got married. Is it certain that offspring would be jeopardized, or is it simply more likely that they would be? At this point the psychological problems for these two are going to be massive no matter what. What a terrible situation.

I agree on all counts, and am saddened by the situation, all around.

I do not find, in the article, any mention of offspring from this marriage. For all we know, the couple might have not wanted kids -- one or the other might volunteer to be sterilized, in which case, really, what's the harm in staying married if they wanted to?

On the positive side, perhaps they can just rub the court's nose in it and remain the very best of friends.

I suppose, realistically, it's the Setting of Precedent that gets the court all upset. *sigh*

[DoughtyOne]

I think you’re right about the precident. It’s really too bad that trumps reason here. At least it does IMO.

I agree with your friends statement also. Very good friends, living under the same roof. Go for it kids.

Thanks for the reply.

[SIDENET]

Ranks right up there with the opinion that having sex with your wife while using contraception is as bad as no homosexual sex.

I saw your correction, but this was still funny.

LOL!!!

[GAB-1955]

“But in many societies the marriage of cousins is allowed - in some, it is even favoured.”

This explains the Saudi royal house now.

[hoosierham]

If the sperm originates outside the marriage, what else would it be ?

And since the whole point of a sperm donor is getting the women pregnant,your bringing homosexuality and contraception into the the discussion strikes me as absurd.Unless of course,you were thinking of some other case,like two homosexual women having a baby with the help of an anonymous sperm donor.And there we are,right back to the selfish woman.

Labeling different opinions absurd doesn't make them so;I notice it is a favored tactic of socialists .

[gracesdad]

“And since the whole point of a sperm donor is getting the women pregnant,your bringing homosexuality and contraception into the the discussion strikes me as absurd.Unless of course,you were thinking of some other case,like two homosexual women having a baby with the help of an anonymous sperm donor.”

Nope, I was comparing your adultery comment to the comments of those, some of whom post on FR, feel that any time a man and a woman have sex without the possibility of creating a child, they are no better than homosexuals having sex. IMO, both are equally ridiculous.

“Labeling different opinions absurd doesn’t make them so;I notice it is a favored tactic of socialists.”

Here on FR we regularly label liberal opinions (and even some conservative opinions) as absurd. Are we socialists because of it?

[TruthSetsUFree]

"I believe sperm donation is just adultery without the human contact."

Agreed.

[ml66uk]

This whole story appears to be untrue. The only source is Lord Alton, hardly the most reliable witness, and no-one else seems to know what he’s talking about.

The President of the Family Division of the High Court Sir Mark Potter said the following:

“This is the first I have heard of it. I know of neither any judge who presided over such a case nor of the case itself.”