Bryan And Bill Get Married, Keep Girlfriends

Toronto Sun article highlights one consequence of Canada’s new laws allowing same-sex marriage that should have been obvious.

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.

“I think it’s a hoot,” Pinn said.

The proposal came last Monday on the patio of a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two — both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love — insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.

“There are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through,” Pinn said.

Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

Precisely – there is no sexual orientation means test for marriage. The issue of same sex marriage has never been one of “equal rights”, but of changing a legal definition. Homosexuals have always been allowed to marry members of the opposite sex (and do so successfully enough to raise families) – and conversely heterosexuals had been prohibited from marrying others of the same sex, for whatever the reason.

Predictably, a “warning” from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist.

“Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.”

Whatever, Bruce.

Having convinced a majority of Canadian MP’s that the “ability to procreate” isn’t a defining characteristic of “marriage”, tell me – -what’s so damned special about “love”?

Update – Blogosphere’s first known use of the term “platonophobe”.

“We need more such consumer advocates out there identifying such opportunities, opportunities that our hate-filled platonophobic society has previously arbitrarily denied to pairs of people who neither love each other nor happen to engage in sexual intercourse.” Mike, at London Fog

FILED UNDER: General,
Kate McMillan
About Kate McMillan
Kate McMillan is the proprietor of small dead animals, which has won numerous awards including Best Conservative Blog and Best Canadian Blog. She contributed nearly 300 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and June 2007. Follow her on Twitter @katewerk.

Comments

  1. John Wilkinson says:

    The “consequence” you highlight is no different than what already exists for mixed-sex marriages. Opposite-sex couples have long been able to marry for any reason they might choose –love, convenience — or for no reason at all.

    The lawyer’s caution is on point: countless non-gay couples have discovered one truth about marriage — along with the rights come legal responsibilities that can’t be simply waved off. One can only hope that these two Canadian men have enough brains to consult a lawyer before taking such an ill-advised step.

    So what makes this “consequence” any different from the situation that already existed, now that same-sex couples can marry?

    Much ado about nothing.




    0



    0
  2. Michael says:

    John,

    Kate was simply taking the opportunity to blame the gays for something stupid that a couple of straight people did. I wouldn’t put much credence in her opinion on this matter.




    0



    0
  3. Richard Gardner says:

    This is similar to the occasional US military marriage of convenience to obtain additional benefits (mostly a housing allowance, that can be over $1000/month). This has been happening for years.

    There is also the marriage of convenience for immigration purposes.

    Nothing fundamentally new here, including a disgruntled special interest (gay lawyer activist) upset that reality has gotten in the way of his ideal.




    0



    0
  4. Bithead says:

    So, you guys are arguing that this changes nothing.

    Riiiiight.




    0



    0
  5. James Joyner says:

    I agree with Richard on this one. Indeed, I can’t imagine many heterosexual men being willing to put up with the ribbing they would get for marrying a guy in order to get the tax benefits. Conversely, it’s not unthinkable for a man and a woman to get married for such convenience. Certainly, the stigma that attached in some quarters would be less.

    The interesting question is whether a lot of non-monogomous gay men would take advantage of the system for the benefits. Given that marriage is much less institutionalized among the gay community–mostly because it has been illegal but alos because of some cultural differences that have arisen — it may be less problematic than a heterosexual couple entering a sham marriage.




    0



    0
  6. James says:

    I think it’s funny that some people believe that this is a legitimate reason to attack gay marriage.




    0



    0
  7. Kate says:

    Some of the commentors at SDA have raised interesting points (based on the Canadian tax system) when it comes exploiting the SSM laws to extend veterans benefits to a “buddy”, etc. — Coupled with the current situation in BC where provincial officials are afraid to interfere in a large (and reportedly, highly abusive) poligamy colony for fear that the poligamy laws would be struck down in a Supreme Court challenge – the underlying question about the consequences of “expanding” the definition of marriage are underlined by this case.

    If traditionalists are out of line in arguing that the legal definition of marriage be constrained to it’s original intention – to provide a legal and societal legitimacy for childrearing (and the security of extended family that goes with it) thus limiting it to opposite sex partnerships, then who do these holier than thou, judgemental “progressives” think they are to declare that a marriage of two men for reasons of tax advantage constitutes “abuse”?

    (After all, how does it affect them?)

    Whether or not heterosexuals have engaged in marriages of convenience in the past is not the issue – the question is at what point does the definition of marriage expand to such a point as to be rendered meaningless?

    State benefits of marriage were originally intended as recognition of the contribution of those who produce the next generation of citizens, and the extra costs and burdens they bear because of that. Now, children are replaced by “love” in forming the legal basis of marriage, yet these couples still feel entitled to “spousal benefits” that evolved from the traditional definition that had its underpinning in child-bearing.

    Talk about having it both ways….




    0



    0
  8. -S- says:

    I think it’s funny that some people believe that this is a legitimate reason to attack gay marriage. – Posted by: James at August 6, 2005 17:27

    -I- think it’s tragic that gay people can use homosexuality in an illigitimate context to attack the sacrament of marriage.




    0



    0
  9. Bill k says:

    because never in the history of marriage has a heterosexual couple got married for the sole purpose of better finances – – or, better immigration status.




    0



    0
  10. Steve Verdon says:

    Kate was simply taking the opportunity to blame the gays for something stupid that a couple of straight people did. I wouldn’t put much credence in her opinion on this matter.

    Blame gays…blink…blink…errr…let me read the post again. Okay I just don’t see it. I tried looking for it, but I don’t see it.




    0



    0
  11. David T. says:

    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.




    0



    0
  12. Kevin says:

    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?




    0



    0
  13. pennywit says:

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

    –|PW|–




    0



    0
  14. John Wilkinson says:

    pennywit asks, “Don’t 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.




    0



    0
  15. pennywit says:

    John —

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

    –|PW|–




    0



    0
  16. Sally says:

    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.




    0



    0
  17. Jim Henley says:

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

    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.




    0



    0
  18. Jim Henley says:

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




    0



    0
  19. Bill says:

    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 we’re getting married – and as the Toronto Sun pointed out, there are tax benefits for us – but basically we’re getting married because we CAN.
    I don’t know much about the history of the Canadian Government’s 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 “Can of Worms” or “Pandora’s Box” if you like.
    I would be concerned about a great number of issues, including immigration into this Country.
    Thank you all very much.
    Bill




    0



    0