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)