Actor Adam Baldwin: If we accept same-sex ‘marriage’, why not let fathers marry sons for tax breaks?
LOS ANGELES, February 24, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Adam Baldwin, an actor best known for his performances in Full Metal Jacket, The Patriot and Firefly, outraged homosexual activists last week by questioning why marriage redefinition should not apply to single fathers who love their sons and want to enjoy all the tax benefits of marriage.
“What's wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?” Baldwin wrote on Twitter.
The actor has earned a spot on many liberal ‘enemies lists’ by using the micro-blogging site to share his outspokenly conservative opinions on pro-life, family and second amendment issues.
Baldwin received an avalanche of angry replies criticizing him for comparing homosexuality to incest. He replied: “Who said anything about ‘sex,’ H8rs?! This is a Liberty & ca deal! Love ≠ Sex.”
Baldwin says his comments were prompted by a statement from Matt Bevin, who is mounting a primary challenge against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
“If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repressions and things that come with it — so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise," Bevin told conservative radio host Janet Mefferd. “Where do you draw the line?”
Bevin and Baldwin are not the first to have asked the question. Last year, British actor Jeremy Irons drew fire for similar remarks about marriage redefinition and tax breaks, telling the Huffington Post, “Tax wise, it’s an interesting [question], because, you see, could a father not marry his son?”
When the interviewer accused Irons of comparing homosexuality with incest, Irons, like Baldwin, disagreed.
“It's not incest between men,” he said. “Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding. But men don’t breed … so incest wouldn't cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.”
After Irons’ comments were widely circulated online and mocked by liberal commentators, the actor posted an open letter on his official website addressing the interview. He denied criticism that he is “anti-gay,” saying instead he simply wanted to have an honest discussion about the potential unintended consequences of a redefinition of marriage.
“I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of Marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners,” Irons wrote. “Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non-reproductive relationships).”
He admitted his example was “mischievous,” but said it was “nonetheless valid.”