It also provides for amendments to a variety of acts (including the Divorce Act, the *Federal Law and Civil Law of the Province of Quebec Act *, the Income Tax Act, and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act.
Correct, Kythereia, the legal ban on incestuous unions existed primarily for the sake of preventing a disruption in the order of the family structure (within which, under the law, adoptees are just as much children and siblings as blood-relations), and the problems with genetic inbreeding are just evidence to support the ban.
What is a disruption in the order of the family structure? Does this mean it would make people’s family tree’s look funny? Really, it’s just because it’s taboo, right?
Something about the exclusion of all others thing bothers me. It makes me think of couples where once they get married they seem to morph into one entity - like the wife can’t do anything without the husband. That annoys me.
Marital arguments and divorces are hard enough as it is, without having to still be related to the person you divorced. I’ve heard of enough situations where someone’s family sides with their ex instead of that person - if your relatives are also your inlaws, things are automatically sticky.
Also, marrying a close relative brings in issues of coercion and potential childhood ‘brainwashing’ - what if Uncle Bob thought that his little niece Suzy was looking lovely, and had been telling her for years to keep a “secret” that once she got all grown up, he was going to ditch her aunt and marry her? What if a family adopted a little girl and her older adopted brother pulled a similar stunt?
Or to boil it down to simpler terms, “disruption in the order of the family structure.” Too much extra potential for chaos, manipulation, and abuse.
Just a quick update for those interested. Bill C-38 has passed second reading (Wed May 4 by 163 Yea to 138 Nay votes). I expect there’s a slim chance it will get to third reading and be passed before an election is called, but at least under the current procedural rules it can be re-introduced at the same stage if the new government chooses to do so rather than having to be restarted from scratch.
It took me a disturbingly long time to realize this bill is being considered in the United Kingdom, not the United States. I’m not Americentric, nooo, not at all …
Naw, it’s just an admonition to all those homos out there that they can’t go getting married on paper just to reap the benefits while maintaining the wildly promiscuous lifestyle those degenerates are known for.
