Jeremy Irons, sat down with Huff Post Live. When asked for his thoughts on gay marriage, Irons replied, “I don’t know… it’s a very interesting one that [issue]… I don’t really have a strong feeling…” but wondered about its ramifications [emphasis added]:
“It seems to me that now we’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?”
While host Josh Zepps interjected that incest laws would prevent such a union, Irons noted:
“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, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son, and pass on my estate to him.”
Zepps countered again, noting that incest laws are not solely rooted in inbreeding concerns and that such a union would still be covered under incest laws.