Oscar winner Jeremy Irons might have a reversal of fortune after his remarks on gay marriage, which are accepting yet questioning yet ironic yet Irons-ic.
Irons said he doesn’t have a strong feeling about gay marriage either way. But then he added that it’s fantastic because “living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great. It’s lovely to have someone to love. I don’t think sex matters at all. What it’s called doesn’t matter at all.”
Talk about flipflopping! I didn’t know the British did it too. But flipflopping toward a more libertarian view is OK, and Irons is against the attempted big-soda ban, so he’s cool, dearie.
But here comes the weird part. “Could a father not marry his son?” he wondered, meaning if same-sex marriage is the norm. After all, he explains, restrictions against incest are there to prevent inbreeding, but men don’t breed. And this way a father can pass down his inheritance to his son without being taxed. Well, I think even if men don’t breed with each other, they shouldn’t marry their fathers. OK??? And that should be the end of that little bit of speculative analogy-making.
And now comes the icky part. “It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name,” Irons said, about the fight for gay marriage as opposed to just civil unions. “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.”
Ugh. Well, me and my father-slash-husband (who’s a St. Bernard, by the way) happen to think it’s just fine!