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
