Urk!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1313175,00.html


October 17, 2004

Parents banned from marrying adoptees
Richard Oakley

PARENTS of adopted children are likely to be banned from marrying them, under
proposed legislation aimed at preventing Woody Allen-style weddings in Ireland.


Proposals being put forward by a government think tank also include a ban on
adopted children marrying their siblings. The group, which was given the task
of modernising Ireland’s marriage laws, is recommending that Irish couples
planning to marry must announce their intentions on the internet three months
before the big day.

Posting virtual banns of marriage would allow for more “public scrutiny” of
intended nuptials, the group says. It will increase the chances of objections
to a planned marriage in cases where there are grounds to do so, such as one of
the intended using a false identity.

The Inter-Departmental Committee on Reform of Marriage Law pointed out that a
ban on parents marrying adopted children does not exist in current legislation.
It is understood that the committee believes such a law is necessary to protect
families from potential disruption.

When a person is adopted in Ireland, common law rules that they are considered
to be born to their new parents. According to the committee, this appears to
prohibit a marriage between an adopted child and his or her parents. But it
does not seem to cover cases where an adoption order ceases to exist.

The group’s paper, which is being posted on its website for public discussion
before being submitted to the government, points out that the Law Reform
Commission recommended in 1984 that legislation be introduced to prevent such
marriages, and between adopted people and their siblings.

“It is considered that the law in relation to marriages between parties
related by adoption is deficient,” the paper says. “Prohibition against
marriages between parents and an adoptive child and between adoptive siblings
even in cases where an adoption order ceases to have effect should be
introduced.”

But it is understood the committee was not aware of any cases where such
marriages have taken place in Ireland. Claire McGettrick, a spokeswoman for the
Adopted People’s Association of Ireland, said it knew of no such nuptials
either. The nearest parallel being that of Woody Allen to Soon-Yi Previn. The
couple’s 1997 marriage was widely criticised because Soon-Yi, 35 years
younger than Allen, is the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, the Hollywood
star’s former lover.

Farrow had dated Allen for more than a decade, but only discovered he was
having a relationship with her adopted daughter when she found nude pictures of
Soon-Yi, then 21, in Allen’s apartment.

Such a marriage is not going to be banned in Ireland, however, given that Allen
was never the adopted parent of Soon-Yi and was never married to Farrow.

McGettrick said that there was still a risk that adopted people could marry
blood relatives without realising it, because they are not allowed to see their
files and learn about their past.

“When you view this new proposal in that light, it highlights how ridiculous
the current situation is. We are introducing laws to prevent adopted children
from marrying their parents, something none of them want to do in the first
place, and yet we have no laws which would help prevent them marrying their
blood relatives by accident,” she said.

The committee says the website of the General Register Office,
www.groireland.ie will be used to post the marriage notifications.

Currently, notice of a marriage is given to a registrar and displayed in their
office. The committee felt that this did not allow for full public scrutiny.
Anybody can object to a wedding if they are aware of any reason why it should
not go ahead. This includes cases where people are already married or where
somebody is using a false identity.

In its discussion document the committee also recommends that marriages between
a granduncle and grandniece, and between a grandaunt and grandnephew, be added
to a list of prohibited unions involving blood relatives, such as that between
a man and his grandmother.

However it failed to reach a decision on what to recommend on marriages
involving in-laws. There are a number of existing prohibitions in this
category: for example a man cannot marry his step-grandmother, his stepmother,
or his aunt.

The discussion document points out that arguments have been made that these
current prohibitions may be too broad and that Irish law is not the same as in
other countries.

Rather than make recommendations it invites further discussion by citing a
number of options, one of which is to remove all restrictions based on
relationships by marriage.

The discussion document will form the basis of a future position paper which
will then go to the Department of Health, which is in charge of reforming
marriage law. The government is expected to enact the majority of the
committee’s recommendations.







-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041017110643.21100.00002176@mb-m07.aol.com... Urk! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1313175,00.html October 17, 2004 Parents banned from marrying adoptees Richard Oakley PARENTS of adopted children are likely to be banned from marrying them, under proposed legislation aimed at preventing Woody Allen-style weddings in Ireland. Proposals being put forward by a government think tank also include a ban on adopted children marrying their siblings

If they're asiblings, why not? They're not related.

.. The group, which was given the task of modernising Ireland's marriage laws, is recommending that Irish couples planning to marry must announce their intentions on the internet three months before the big day. Posting virtual banns of marriage would allow for more "public scrutiny" of intended nuptials, the group says. It will increase the chances of objections to a planned marriage in cases where there are grounds to do so, such as one of the intended using a false identity.

Why should the public care? The Inter-Departmental Committee on Reform of Marriage Law pointed out that a ban on parents marrying adopted children does not exist in current legislation. It is understood that the committee believes such a law is necessary to protect families from potential disruption.

What are the taling about. And besides, Woody Allen never adopted Soon Yi. When a person is adopted in Ireland, common law rules that they are considered to be born to their new parents. According to the committee, this appears to prohibit a marriage between an adopted child and his or her parents. But it does not seem to cover cases where an adoption order ceases to exist. The group's paper, which is being posted on its website for public discussion before being submitted to the government, points out that the Law Reform Commission recommended in 1984 that legislation be introduced to prevent such marriages, and between adopted people and their siblings. "It is considered that the law in relation to marriages between parties related by adoption is deficient," the paper says. "Prohibition against marriages between parents and an adoptive child and between adoptive siblings even in cases where an adoption order ceases to have effect should be introduced."

Why?
But it is understood the committee was not aware of any cases where such marriages have taken place in Ireland. Claire McGettrick, a spokeswoman for the Adopted People's Association of Ireland, said it knew of no such nuptials either. The nearest parallel being that of Woody Allen to Soon-Yi Previn. The couple's 1997 marriage was widely criticised because Soon-Yi, 35 years younger than Allen, is the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, the Hollywood star's former lover. Farrow had dated Allen for more than a decade, but only discovered he was having a relationship with her adopted daughter when she found nude pictures of Soon-Yi, then 21, in Allen's apartment. Such a marriage is not going to be banned in Ireland, however, given that Allen was never the adopted parent of Soon-Yi and was never married to Farrow. McGettrick said that there was still a risk that adopted people could marry blood relatives without realising it, because they are not allowed to see their files and learn about their past.

That's ore to the ponit. But nobody cares about that, do they? "When you view this new proposal in that light, it highlights how ridiculous the current situation is. We are introducing laws to prevent adopted children from marrying their parents, something none of them want to do in the first place, and yet we have no laws which would help prevent them marrying their blood relatives by accident," she said. The committee says the website of the General Register Office, www.groireland.ie will be used to post the marriage notifications. Currently, notice of a marriage is given to a registrar and displayed in their office. The committee felt that this did not allow for full public scrutiny. Anybody can object to a wedding if they are aware of any reason why it should not go ahead. This includes cases where people are already married or where somebody is using a false identity.

Tough. In its discussion document the committee also recommends that marriages between a granduncle and grandniece, and between a grandaunt and grandnephew, be added to a list of prohibited unions involving blood relatives, such as that between a man and his grandmother.

So, who is doing all this inner-family marrying? However it failed to reach a decision on what to recommend on marriages involving in-laws. There are a number of existing prohibitions in this category: for example a man cannot marry his step-grandmother, his stepmother, or his aunt.

Why would he want to? And if he did, why not? It's all over the Bible. The discussion document points out that arguments have been made that these current prohibitions may be too broad and that Irish law is not the same as in other countries. Rather than make recommendations it invites further discussion by citing a number of options, one of which is to remove all restrictions based on relationships by marriage. The discussion document will form the basis of a future position paper which will then go to the Department of Health, which is in charge of reforming marriage law. The government is expected to enact the majority of the committee's recommendations.

Don't they Irish have something better to worry about, like the tourist
trade?>

Marley ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote "LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote
Urk! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1313175,00.html October 17, 2004 Parents banned from marrying adoptees Richard Oakley Proposals being put forward by a government think tank also include a ban on adopted children marrying their siblings If they're asiblings, why not? They're not related.

I dunno. I'd say that if you don't have an "incest taboo" between
a-sibs -- expressed as a marriage ban -- it becomes much more
difficult to raise two kids as though they are brother and sister.
Instead, you have to have in place all the norms that you have for
unrelated couples. That's the kind of thing that makes Indian
orphanages separate boys and girls into different institutions.

It could also intensify emotions and thus rivalries within a family. I
have to admit I'd be uncomfortable with a situation in which a man
could marry his adopted daughter as soon as she was 18, or two
a-children within the same family marry.

OTOH, I don't really have a problem with anything adults do, as such,
as long as they hurt no-one else; and I can see how I could condone
the government deciding that it wanted nothing to do with defining
degrees of relationship and who could marry whom. I once heard a radio
program about two b-sibs who had been raised apart, and they met and
fell in love in their 20s. They are de facto married, and raising
several kids together.

I read somewhere that kids raised together before the age of 4 (? not
sure) consider each other siblings, and tend not to be attracted to
each other.

. It will increase the chances of objections to a planned marriage in cases where there are grounds to do so, such as one of the intended using a false identity. Why should the public care?

Because marriage is a public institution, and so the community has a
stake in it?
And besides, Woody Allen never adopted Soon Yi.

This is true. It's more of a Lolita type of situation; the fact that
Soon-Yi is Farrow's adopted daughter has little to do with it. Had she
been her bio-kid by a previous marriage, would there have been any law
against Woody Allen marrying her?
But it does not seem to cover cases where an adoption order ceases to exist.

How does an adoption order cease to exist? And if an adoption is
overturned, then why should the taboo remain?
"It is considered that the law in relation to marriages between parties related by adoption is deficient," the paper says. "Prohibition against marriages between parents and an adoptive child and between adoptive siblings even in cases where an adoption order ceases to have effect should be introduced." Why?
I wonder, too. Maybe because the thought is that while an adoption can
be terminated, the relationship cannot. The nearest parallel being that of Woody Allen to Soon-Yi Previn. The couple's 1997 marriage was widely criticised because Soon-Yi, 35 years younger than Allen, is the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, the Hollywood star's former lover.

Ah. So Farrow wasn't even married to Allen?
Such a marriage is not going to be banned in Ireland, however, given that Allen was never the adopted parent of Soon-Yi and was never married to Farrow.

Ah, there you go.
McGettrick said that there was still a risk that adopted people could marry blood relatives without realising it, because they are not allowed to see their files and learn about their past. That's ore to the ponit. But nobody cares about that, do they?

Should they?
In its discussion document the committee also recommends that marriages between a granduncle and grandniece, and between a grandaunt and grandnephew, be added to a list of prohibited unions involving blood relatives, such as that between a man and his grandmother. So, who is doing all this inner-family marrying?

And why this legislation? What's the point? A man and his grandmother
are 1/4 related (as would be a man and his aunt). But a granduncle and
grandniece would be 1/8 related (like a cousin).
However it failed to reach a decision on what to recommend on marriages involving in-laws. There are a number of existing prohibitions in this category: for example a man cannot marry his step-grandmother, his stepmother, or his aunt.
Why would he want to? And if he did, why not? It's all over the Bible. The discussion document points out that arguments have been made that these current prohibitions may be too broad and that Irish law is not the same as in other countries. Rather than make recommendations it invites further discussion by citing a number of options, one of which is to remove all restrictions based on relationships by marriage.

I'd go with that.

Wonder what Helen thinks.

Rupa

I will confess I had not thought about the possibility of two siblngs who
had been placed up for adoption meeting each other and getting married or
simply just intimate. It is certainly not inconceivable. If both are from
states where thier records are forever sealed are incest laws beng broken?
If so, who is liable? If they bear a child with a serious genetic problem
could they sue the involved states? DNA testing would show if they had one
or both of the same parents I do believe. Shades of Oeidipus Rex. (Yes I
know that was a story of a son marrying his own mother.) As for two adoptees
in the same family with no genetic link getting married; interesting
dilemma.

As a side note, in Saudi Arabia it is common practice for 1st cousins to
marry. Testing for genetic disorders is apparently routine.

I have noted a number of posts dealing with the issue of abandoned children
or children given up by thier parent(s) in various countries. All children
are innocent and none should be subjected to harm but we cannot judge the
actions of others based on our own rules and morals. We are observing the
byproduct of thousands of years of culture mixed with current day politics
and economics. The people who place themselves in harms way to protect these
innocent victims are worthy orf our highest respect. Just my two cents.

Raymond

>Subject: Re: Parents banned from marrying adopteesFrom: "sylak" sylak@adelphia.netDate: 10/17/2004 6:23 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <UdmdnbpSVaqPkO7cRVn-iw@adelphia.com>I will confess I had not thought about the possibility of two siblngs whohad been placed up for adoption meeting each other and getting married orsimply just intimate. It is certainly not inconceivable.

GSA is becoming a pretty well-documented thing. I've recently had
the--um--misfortune (?) to witness it, and it is still skeeving me out.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<UdmdnbpSVaqPkO7cRVn-iw@adelphia.com>... I will confess I had not thought about the possibility of two siblngs who had been placed up for adoption meeting each other and getting married or simply just intimate. It is certainly not inconceivable. If both are from states where thier records are forever sealed are incest laws beng broken? If so, who is liable? If they bear a child with a serious genetic problem could they sue the involved states? DNA testing would show if they had one or both of the same parents I do believe. Shades of Oeidipus Rex. (Yes I know that was a story of a son marrying his own mother.) As for two adoptees in the same family with no genetic link getting married; interesting dilemma. As a side note, in Saudi Arabia it is common practice for 1st cousins to marry. Testing for genetic disorders is apparently routine.

The genetic risk of two siblings marrying is apparently greatly
over-played. It's certainly greater than for non-sibs, but not so much
greater that it's a huge issue -- unless they actually are carrying
known recessives for diseases.

There are parts of India where preferred marriages are between uncles
and nieces (girl marries her mother's brother). This is not as
far-fetched as it might be; with large families, even the age
difference is not necessarily very large. The degree of consanguinity
is greater than with first cousins: It's 1/4, which is as close as a
half-sibling.

In a population where endogamy is the norm, many of the bad genes get
shaken out by being expressed and eliminated from the gene pool.

Rupa

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<UdmdnbpSVaqPkO7cRVn-iw@adelphia.com>... I will confess I had not thought about the possibility of two siblngs who had been placed up for adoption meeting each other and getting married or simply just intimate. It is certainly not inconceivable. If both are from states where thier records are forever sealed are incest laws beng broken? If so, who is liable? If they bear a child with a serious genetic problem could they sue the involved states? DNA testing would show if they had one or both of the same parents I do believe. Shades of Oeidipus Rex. (Yes I know that was a story of a son marrying his own mother.) As for two adoptees in the same family with no genetic link getting married; interesting dilemma. As a side note, in Saudi Arabia it is common practice for 1st cousins to marry. Testing for genetic disorders is apparently routine.

The genetic risk of two siblings marrying is apparently greatly
over-played. It's certainly greater than for non-sibs, but not so much
greater that it's a huge issue -- unless they actually are carrying
known recessives for diseases.

There are parts of India where preferred marriages are between uncles
and nieces (girl marries her mother's brother). This is not as
far-fetched as it might be; with large families, even the age
difference is not necessarily very large. The degree of consanguinity
is greater than with first cousins: It's 1/4, which is as close as a
half-sibling.

In a population where endogamy is the norm, many of the bad genes get
shaken out by being expressed and eliminated from the gene pool.

Rupa

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20041017202901.07384.00002792@mb-m29.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Parents banned from marrying adopteesFrom: "sylak" sylak@adelphia.netDate: 10/17/2004 6:23 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <UdmdnbpSVaqPkO7cRVn-iw@adelphia.com>I will confess I had not thought about the possibility of two siblngs whohad been placed up for adoption meeting each other and getting married orsimply just intimate. It is certainly not inconceivable. GSA is becoming a pretty well-documented thing. I've recently had the--um--misfortune (?) to witness it, and it is still skeeving me out.

Assuming you are not personally involved in this, what do you find
disturbing about it? Just that it breaks a taboo we've all grown up
with, or something more?

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Parents banned from marrying adopteesFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 10/17/2004 7:29 PM Central Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20041017202901.07384.00002792@mb-m29.aol.com>
GSA is becoming a pretty well-documented thing. I've recently hadthe--um--misfortune (?) to witness it, and it is still skeeving me out.



I personally know a woman who .... ah geez .... I can't even type it. But she
feels it about her son and talks about it ad nauseum and I'd just like to
*****-slap her.

In the first place I will never understand how it can happen and in the second
place, IF it happened I would expect the *feeler* to stuff that feeling down so
deep it never saw the light of day again. Get over it already!

She is now almost 3 years reunited. Two years and eleven months of that time
should have been spent free of GSA. But no..... the woman still goes on and on
and on.

I do definitely empathize with the need to touch your child when you first
meet... my grown daughter and I walked all over a huge flea-market with our
arms around each other's waists or holding hands every second. That whole week
- through the grocery store or wherever we were.. sitting on the front porch..
on the living room couch... we held hands or were touching each other's arms
and hair. I'm sure many people who saw us thought we were a May/December
couple of Lesbians but neither one of us gave a ****. That need leveled off
after a year or so and we touch now about the same number of times and in the
same manner as my raised children and I touch.

But GSA??!!

Three letters in reply: O.M.G. !

The woman I know acts like she's on a crusade to make a "union" legal, for
God's sake. Like everyone should feel so fricking sorry for her and tell her
to go ahead... if it will make her feel better. Of course the level of
attention is through the roof. Maybe that's it. But dammit...

*You* just don't allow feelings like that to continue when they are about your
own children!

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!


Marla Sr.