This week Norman Tebbit weighed in on the gay marriage bill with two ridiculous hypotheticals – firstly that gay marriage would allow people to marry their children in order to circumvent inheritance tax and secondly that gay marriage would force a constitutional crisis when a lesbian queen married a woman and had a child by artificial insemination. A salutary reminder that the Conservative party needn’t look as far as their local associations for their swivel eyed loons – there are plenty inside westminster.
Tebbit’s comments are so patently absurd it is almost a wonder that any time is given to them at all but because he is in the House of Lords his words must be taken seriously. To that end, his first issue was incest and tax avoidance:
“It’s like one of my colleagues said: we’ve got to make these same sex marriages available to all,” he said.
“It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I’d be allowed to marry my son.
“Why not? Why shouldn’t a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters living together marry each other?”
He added: “I quite fancy my brother!”
In case anyone is in doubt: fathers will no more be allowed to marry their sons than they are currently allowed to marry their daughters. Gay marriage will not allow incest any more than heterosexual marriage does. Why would it? As for fancying your brother well, that’s your own problem and very little to with being gay and nothing at all to do with marriage. There appears to be an equivalence in some people’s minds between incest and homosexuality that is in no way born out by reality. Besides, only a Tory Lord would make a civil rights issue like gay marriage about tax evasion.
Almost more egregious were his comments about the dangers of an LGBT monarch.
“When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?”
I think a lesbian Queen who got married to a woman would be awesome but even assuming you have a philosophical objection to that, artificial insemination has nothing to do with gay marriage. What if Prince William had been unable to father a child? If the couple had then opted for artificial insemination the same dilemma would occur. I would hope that as a country we would be grown up enough to recognise that, whether a monarch adopted a child or used artificial insemination, that child would still be their heir. Besides, as an argument against gay marriage, this example is so highly specific as to be irrelevant to all but a handful of families in britain who inherit titles by birth.
When will the swivel eyed loons realise they’ve lost?
Comments from the guardian and co.
- Gay marriage bill may lead to ‘lesbian queen and artificially inseminated heir’ (guardian.co.uk)
- Gay marriage in Britain ‘could lead to lesbian queen’ (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
- Norman Tebbit on gay marriage: What next? A lesbian queen? (theweek.co.uk)