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.
"We heteros haven't done a great job with marriage as it is," Pinn said.
They want to shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new legislation and are willing to take it all the way.
And it's not just financial incentives, either, that might lead to a spate of heterosexual same-sex marriages.
Communications between spouses during marriage are privileged under the Canada Evidence Act, for example. The mob could keep its members from snitching on each other by having them get married.
Naturally, this has the homosexual lobby up in arms:
Words of warning came 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."
Unfortunately for Mr. Walker, love has never been part of the law of marriage, and neither has sexual preference. If a homosexual man can marry a lesbian woman, then why not two heterosexual men or women? Isn't the right of same-sex marriage as much the right of straights as it is of gays?
Or will the homosexual lobby demand that the Civil Marriage Act be amended to require proof of homosexual orientation as a condition of same-sex marriage? Because wasn't SSM all about legitimizing homosexual practices, after all?
Kudos to Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Pinn for making a mockery of SSM.
Source: Toronto Sun
2 comments:
Pretty assinine effort, if you ask me. I fail to see how this shows SSM as a farce. Any two opposite sex friends could do exactly the same thing, get married and get the tax benefits. In fact, the farce is making an issue out of this here, at The Shotgun, over at small dead animals: Dalrymple and Pinn could have accomplished the same result as a civil union couple which was completely legal and recognized before.
~TB
SSM's proponents were pushing it because they wanted legal validation of their sexual practices. Sexual preference as had to replace gender as the core defining value of civil marriage in order to do so.
Homosexuals have always been able to marry someone of the opposite sex; their sexual preference was irrelevant to the validity of such marriages.
These two men have demonstrated that sexual preference is equally irrelevant to SSM, and the homosexuals don't like that fact one bit.
Post a Comment