This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/apr/22/jeremy-irons-gay-marriage-comments

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jeremy Irons backtracks on gay marriage comments Jeremy Irons backtracks on gay marriage comments
(5 months later)
Jeremy Irons has backtracked over his controversial comment that legalising gay marriage might lead to fathers marrying their sons to avoid inheritance tax.Jeremy Irons has backtracked over his controversial comment that legalising gay marriage might lead to fathers marrying their sons to avoid inheritance tax.
The Oscar-winning actor told BBC interviewer Stephen Sackur he wished he had "buttoned my lip" before discussing the issue in an interview with the Huffington Post.The Oscar-winning actor told BBC interviewer Stephen Sackur he wished he had "buttoned my lip" before discussing the issue in an interview with the Huffington Post.
"I think gay marriage is wonderful. I think any reason that holds anybody together in a relationship is great," he said. "If it works as glue, if it makes you feel better, if it makes you feel you love your partner more, then great.""I think gay marriage is wonderful. I think any reason that holds anybody together in a relationship is great," he said. "If it works as glue, if it makes you feel better, if it makes you feel you love your partner more, then great."
In the earlier interview, Irons mused over the benefits of a change in the law, which he said might lead to fathers marrying sons in order to pass on property without incurring tax penalties. "I worry that it means we change or debase what marriage is," he said. "Tax-wise it's an interesting one. Could a father not marry his son? 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."In the earlier interview, Irons mused over the benefits of a change in the law, which he said might lead to fathers marrying sons in order to pass on property without incurring tax penalties. "I worry that it means we change or debase what marriage is," he said. "Tax-wise it's an interesting one. Could a father not marry his son? 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."
Irons also said during the interview that he had no strong views either way on gay marriage, but his comments nevertheless caused controversy.Irons also said during the interview that he had no strong views either way on gay marriage, but his comments nevertheless caused controversy.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.