August 06, 2005

I've been waiting for this

Two straight men are pushing the limits of Canada's same-sex marriage act. According to this Toronto Sun article:

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.

Ever since this debate started several years ago, this exact situation has been the pink elephant in the room. Will legislators seek to ban "marriages" that have nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, but that simply seek the various tax and legal advantages that the estate of matrimony provides? How could these opportunistic unions be fairly blocked?

I can just see the Gay Elite blowing a gasket over this one, can't you? Same-sex marriage is an advantage for the gay community, after all. An equality step, if you will. And the "Breeders" are taking advantage of it. "That's not fair!" some will whine. I hate to say it, but you all set up this mess. It's your catch-22. Unless you let the government into people's bedrooms there's no way to tell if Bryan and Bill are lovers or just friends. Hell, I'd suspect that a lot of marriages, gay and straight would look more like friends than lovers in the bedroom...

You can't say that a same-sex marriage is null if one of the parties was previously married, a lot of gay folks have been married because of societal pressure. You can't say that if someone has parented a child the marriage is null, either, because gays of both genders participate genetically in the conception of their children.

I don't think there's a way to allow same-sex marriage without allowing Bryan and Bill to wed too.

A personal example: I have two good friends that I will refer to as A and B. A and B are the best of friends and were roomies all through college and through much of graduate school. During the 6 or so years that they shared accomodations, they acquired a number of joint things, including Costco cards and a shared phone plan. But I digress. It was a frequent joke that their families thought they were "together" since neither had much luck with guys at the time and well, they were pretty inseperable. How hard would it have been for A and B to get some nice tax breaks during the years they shared an address and a phone number but not a bed?

Although I suppose there might have been a fair bit of paperwork to deal with when one of them got married last spring.....

The reaction has already started. The article also quotes a gay activist who says:

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

Straight people don't even get married for love all the time. What makes this guy think that same-sex marriage should be held to a higher standard????

So, what's your take? Do you think that a significant number of people are going to take advantage of this "loophole" in Canada's law? What about here in the US, where registered domestic partners have certain rights in some states?

Oh, and BTW, I'm all for same-sex marriage. I just don't like what I expect will be the hypocritical response of the gay movement to this....

(h/t Kate posting at OTB)

Posted by caltechgirl at August 6, 2005 06:52 PM | TrackBack

Extend marriage to same-sex straight couples??? Hell, it needn't stop there: perhaps the Berlin Wall also qualifies for all the benefits of marriage. :-)

Posted by: Paul Burgess at August 6, 2005 07:59 PM

this seems like a new spin on an old story... i remember back in the day gay guys marrying straight female friends to make a point. and we've all heard of marriages of convinence - the one's where people stay married or get married for much the same reason.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: KG at August 6, 2005 08:10 PM

These two guys want to get married for the tax advantage. To my mind this is indicative of the callousness with which straights have traditionally viewed marriage. Let's not forget that some fifty percent of straight marriages end in divorce -- the rate is higher in the red states. And, whose fault is that?

Please bear in mind that this is a sham wedding between two heterosexuals. No gay person is getting married here. The homophobes need to grow up and take responsibility for their own marriage woes. Stop blaming everybody else for your adultery and divorce rates. The lack of sanctity in your own marriages has nothing whatsoever to do with gays. In fact I'll bet you anything that gays will make a better go of marriage than your lot has.

Posted by: Noah at August 7, 2005 06:26 PM

Ain't no way on this little blue planet I'll take Noah's bet (and I say this as a gay male).

Me personally, I've been rather amused at the whole situation. Just goes to show that where there's a law, there's an exploitable loophole.

The joys of the human condition...


Posted by: Doug McKay at August 7, 2005 10:42 PM


Posted by: bob at August 8, 2005 10:28 AM

You've included some very good points. Well done.

Even still, the biggest issue for me is the family. All the stats show the families with a man-woman team leading perform better than the rest. It's what is best for the children (our future) that matters most. That, and the whole "God said we should" thing.

Posted by: Paladin at August 8, 2005 01:11 PM

They are exploiting a loophole in marriage laws, not gay-marriage laws. I don't say this to condemn anybody. I wish it were true that all marriages were conceived in love, with the result of building a family, HYDI (however you define it).

What house were you in? I haven't come across many Techers in the blogosphere (euphemism, meaning none). Ruddock here. Nice blog.

Posted by: AbbaGav at August 11, 2005 04:39 AM

Marriage is - as always - a legal arrangement. These guys are just making the point for everyone (whether intended or not) that there are potential legal niceties if you are married. So, buyer beware, good luck guys.

The gay activist quote seems a little out of context. He didn't say " marriage should be for love" or " People who don't..."

In fact the article goes on to say "Walker isn't personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights."

I guess these guys got their 15 minutes of fame.


Posted by: Super G at August 12, 2005 03:36 PM

That should of read he didn't say "Gay marriage should be for love" or "Gay people who don't..."

Posted by: Super G at August 12, 2005 03:37 PM

The Gay "Moral Majority"?

Preaching that gay marriage should be for love, only?

::: removes rose-colored glasses :::
::: blinks :::

Wow. Impressive.

I do believe I've seen everything.

Posted by: Margi at August 16, 2005 02:57 AM