Comments on: Bryan And Bill Get Married, Keep Girlfriends

By: Challies Dot Com

Challies Dot Com — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:00 +0000

A Marriage of Fiscal Convenience

In what is destined to be a failed marketing tactic, the Toronto Sun, a Toronto newspaper (remember newspapers - those odd book-like objects we used to read before we had high-speed Internet access) has been dropping their Sunday edition on my doorstep...

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:10:35 +0000

This is Bill Dalrymple.
My friend of more than 20 years and I (both heterosexual) announced last Saturday in the Toronto Sun that we plan to get married under the new Canadian Same Sex Marriage legislation.
Most everyone wants to know the reason weâre getting married â and as the Toronto Sun pointed out, there are tax benefits for us â but basically weâre getting married because we CAN.
I donât know much about the history of the Canadian Governmentâs involvement in legislation of laws regarding marriage, but I would imagine that if I were to delve into that history, I would find that the initial laws were legislated to encourage people to have offspring and create new taxpayers.
With the Same Sex Law now in place, Bryan and I figured that we would open the inevitable âCan of Wormsâ or âPandoraâs Boxâ if you like.
I would be concerned about a great number of issues, including immigration into this Country.
Thank you all very much.
Bill

By: Angry in the Great White North

Angry in the Great White North — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:41:25 +0000

Warning from Gay Activist: Don't you dare cheapen and corrupt marriage!

If marriage no longer has anything to do with sex, then what does this mean to laws like those concerning bigamy?

By: One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » Unintended consequences

One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » Unintended consequences — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:19:48 +0000

[...] Kate at OTB explains an unintended consequence of Canada’s law legalizing same-sex marriage: straight singles wanting to get married the traditional way taking the SSM plunge legally to gain the tax benefits while they seek Mr. or Ms. Right.Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist—they’re straight men. [...]

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:32:14 +0000

Anyway, these guys are Bryan and Bill? I thought gay marriage was only for Adam and Steve.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:30:57 +0000

who do these holier than thou, judgemental âprogressivesâ think they are to declare that a marriage of two men for reasons of tax advantage constitutes âabuseâ?

How I cherish my memory of the days when I could believe that Nietszche was right about ressentiment being a characteristic malady of the Left.

By: California Mafia

California Mafia — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:02:22 +0000

The Law of Unintended Consequences

But really, this isn't about gay marriage for me. This is an example of how little seriousness we give marriage these days.

By: Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis"

Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis" — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:40:48 +0000

Heterosexual Canadians marry for tax benefit

From the Ottawa Sun... Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and...

By: Sally

Sally — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:30:06 +0000

We're talking about two heterosexuals getting married here. Technically this is not gay marriage as no homosexual is getting married. I guess it's up to us homos to show our heterosexual neighbours that marriage is about love and commitment and not greed and tax breaks.

By: pennywit

pennywit — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:00:49 +0000

John --

Thanks. I was curious about that, couldn't remember if there was a consummation requirement or not in most states.

--|PW|--

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:54:35 +0000

pennywit asks, "Donât most states require consummation to form a valid marriage?"

No. States allow the partners to decide if procreation is central to their marriage. If -- and only if -- the marital partners decide that inability or disinterest is a deal killer, then the marriage can be annuled.

The issue is left where it belongs, in the hands of the partners, not in the hands of the state.

By: pennywit

pennywit — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:37:02 +0000

Don't most states require consummation to form a valid marriage?

--|PW|--

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:23:13 +0000

Bah. Let 'em form a union. Only don't call it marriage. Call it 'civil union' or 'garriage' or something. Don't let anyone change the meaning of marriage. Remember what they did to the word 'gay'. How many straight guys wanna go out and have 'a gay old time' anymore?

By: David T.

David T. — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:15:04 +0000

If you consider the rates of adultery and divorce in heterosexual marriages it's painfully clear who has been undermining the sanctity of marriage. Hint: it's not the gays. And, not surprisingly, this lack of sanctity is statistically highest among those who purport to be "very" religious. As enlightened human beings we can update the marriage laws and make them less discriminatory but we just can't seem to stop heterosexuals from making a mockery of marriage.

By: Les Enfants Terrible

Les Enfants Terrible — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 03:56:08 +0000

Marriage Officially a Joke in Cananda

Yet another example of feel-good liberal policies, badly thought out, creating a burden that the rest of us will be forced to saddle.