The actor Jeremy Irons says he’s a libertarian. He said in an interview that perhaps a man should be able to marry his son. That way the son’s inheritance would be assured, since our laws most favor the spouse. The interviewer said that would be incest, and therefore illegal — to which Irons responded no it wouldn’t, since the idea behind incest laws is to prevent deformed offspring, and since males can’t produce offspring that isn’t a factor. He said lawyers will enjoy years and years of litigation as marriage continues to be redefined and expanded.
Sounds like this Irons guy is throwing a lot of chaff into the air. If a man wants his estate to go to his son he needs to write it into his will and the courts need to stop playing games and recognize a will as written.
The simple fact is that the state had little to do with marriage until the 1850s
Maybe incest laws interfere with 'rights'. What next?
RE: The actor Jeremy Irons says he’s a libertarian. He said in an interview that perhaps a man should be able to marry his son. That way the son’s inheritance would be assured, since our laws most favor the spouse.
He has a point. Once you change the definition of marriage, nothing will stop the meaning of the word from “evolving” until it will mean anything to anyone, which in effect, makes it meaningless.