August 6, 2005

What's Love Got To Do With It?

A 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, there's a "warning" from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay 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

Posted by Kate at August 6, 2005 11:47 AM
TrackBacks from Maggie's Farm
Two straight guys marry in Canada: hahaha. They get a tax break. SDAIslam is a cult of death: Auster seems to have reached his limit of tolerance, here.Tony Blair is "growing in the job:" "We're angry about them abusing our good nature and [Read More]

Tracked on August 6, 2005 4:57 PM


Delightful item; "love" indeed! I am also hoping that someone will challenge the law's imposition of conditions of consanguinity (which were certainly there in the original language) on same-sex marriages.

Posted by: Roseberry at August 6, 2005 12:08 PM

ha ha
I wonder if they'll both still be laughing if one of them decides to get a divorce and split their assets?

Posted by: Memewarrior at August 6, 2005 12:42 PM

Wonderful...make a mockery of the SSM farce and exploit the fallacy of gay lifestyle mythos. SSM was all about acessing sousal benefits and nothing more evolved than that....glad these guys can make a point and gaul the political elites at the same time

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 6, 2005 12:44 PM

This type of scenario was extensively discussed on Canadianna's Place. I personally took part in the back-and-forth. The SSM proponents were unable to argue successfully against this sort of thing being allowed.

See "It's all about sex" at:

Now it'll be interesting to see how the gov't treats these two fellows who will simply claim their equality rights. Wonder if the gay community will be offended as then their "marriages" will no longer feel "special", which may have been the ultimate goal for them, notwithstanding claims of "equality".?

We warned the left! It's happening already! Heeyah! Up next: polygamy and lord knows what else!

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 12:56 PM

If one of the spouses works and the other doesn't, the worker can declare the non-worker as a dependant. In some other instances, a married couple would be better off economically to get a divorce. For example, a child can be used as an equivalent-to-spouse deduction if the couple live separately.

I see a great future for the first entrepreneur who establishes an Internet service to match up singles as roommates for tax purposes with a catchy name like "For Love or Money," or even "What's Love Got to Do With It?"

Posted by: Drained Brain at August 6, 2005 12:56 PM

The institution of marriage as it has been known since time immemorial may now in Canada be dead, unfortunately.

Long-run social harm of this extreme experiment-without-an-hypothesis is unpredictable but a very real threat. The state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect the interests of society as a whole.

A warning to the left: I am fully prepared to debate you on this issue.

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 1:02 PM

If these 2 geeks could find girls they could marry them for tax benefits too. Heteros have married for government benefits too. This isn’t a SSM issue. this is two knobs looking for attention.

Posted by: aaa at August 6, 2005 1:20 PM

This was being considered by some Veterans. SO that they could pass on their veterans benefits and help out a pal.

Here is the extreme...Daughter marries her ill mother so that the RRSPS get transferred tax free....of course related marriage isnt allowed yet, but if it is about love only then then there is no reason why a daughter who loves her mother, and who doubts a mothers love for her children :-> , then they should be allowed this status as well.

The point is there needs to be a line, the line used to be oppositie sex, non related and both being of legal age, and not currently married to anyone else. One of those lines is gone now, for good or ill, and now the next line will be challenged and need to be justified or abandoned. This isnt fear mongering it is just a normal process in a constituional democracy.

The next line of challenge, in my opinion, will be multiple spouses. It may take 10 years but it will be debated in Parliament sooner rather than later.

Good for those two gents. Unless the state is now going to get involved in determining legitimate love versus illegitimate love.

By the way, how is the state now going to determine or justify deporting someone for a false marriage. IE someone who marries a Canadian to become a citizen.

This wasnt thought through............

Posted by: Stephen at August 6, 2005 1:25 PM

"This isn’t a SSM issue. this is two knobs looking for attention."

Ha!! ... ROFLMAO ... "aaa" what the hell do you think SSM was all about? .. Love isn't defined by marriage, so it had to be about the money...

Posted by: rob at August 6, 2005 1:35 PM

Bill and Bryan:

Now this is clever! More power to you. Since the concept of marriage has been reduced to a mere housekeeping arrangement, why not take advantage of any financial benefits available?

Proving once again there is only one law that never fails: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Posted by: JJM at August 6, 2005 1:35 PM

aaa, no doubt you are a young person who may not have looked into the plus and minus of marraige and the dominion.

Drained brain, who is sometimes, like me, dead wrong, is correct on this one.

If a couple is not officially married, with state paper-work, they are less a target of money grasping laws than are the officialy married. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 6, 2005 1:40 PM

Yes, because opposite sex couples never get married for the benefits, or to allow someone to immigrate legally etc... They always do it for love.....

Posted by: Peter at August 6, 2005 1:41 PM

Same-sex couples have been able to access benefits related to marriage since the 1990's. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage would not have prevented the financial arrangement described in the Sun article.

Posted by: Ed at August 6, 2005 1:42 PM

Well, one unintended consequence is that we're ALL going to hell now....

Posted by: Maple stump at August 6, 2005 1:43 PM

Oh, Brave New World, at last: soma for all.

Benefits: Free Vastectomies; free tligations; free abs testing; skin grafts & twtwtooes; returnable condoms; exemption from discrimination; free passes to Rideau Hell, courtesy AdScam Martin & G-G. Libby Davies as your financial advisoress; Svend will assist the legal-aid efforts pro-bono. Speaking of Bono, free Aides Concerts tickets. All tax write-offss.
Thank you to & vote Libran$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: maz2 at August 6, 2005 1:45 PM

*Account compromised: Billing info moved or changed*

New PayPal Phishing. Did you see this yet?

I sent a copy of the phishy Email, [with properties], to ; and

Do you know of any other good spam busters? These two are swamped. 73s TonyGuitar

Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 6, 2005 1:51 PM

It's no big deal in Alberta and hasn't been for over two years. About a year ago Colby Cosh wrote an article about Alberta law in which he said:

"[...] The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, which was passed into law in June, 2003, [...] is basically an implementation of the "civil union" concept; it allows partners in "committed" cohabitation to sign an unregistered contract that gives them access to a wide array of privileges previously reserved for married couples. "Adult interdependent partners" can claim "spousal" insurance benefits, "spousal" support in the event of a separation, "spousal" privileges relating to wills and inheritances, and even court-mandated protection orders in the event of domestic violence. It's designed to be marriage in all but name.

"The unique Albertan quirk was that the new "interdependent" relationships don't have to be conjugal. Unmarried platonic "life partners" -- even a pair of old bachelor brothers in a tin shed --can sign on the dotted line and get the benefits once reserved for heterosexual spouses.

"[...] AIRA isn't too well known even within Alberta, and no one knows how many Albertans, if any, have signed partnership agreements."

Posted by: Tony at August 6, 2005 1:57 PM

Because heaven knows no straight couple has ever made an ill-advised decision about marriage. These two guys may be further proof of that point but this says nothing whatsoever about the supposed "right" of "homosexuals" to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is just another mockery of every person who has been excluded from their partner's death bed, last will and testament or benefits and I see nothing funny or clever about it.

Posted by: Flea at August 6, 2005 2:07 PM

Stephen: It's not a consequence of "constituional democracy" but rather of "Charter of Rights" judicially-enforced democracy. And one wonders how democratic that will end up, especially with a Prime Minister's singular power to appoint judges.


Posted by: Mark Collins at August 6, 2005 2:25 PM

Mockery? Maybe, except that they wouldn't be the first same-sex couple to get hitched just to make a point and not for love.

A lesbian couple in Toronto was granted Canada's first same-sex divorce on September 14, 2004. Having married on June 18, 2003, the couple stayed together for 5 days, but challenged the constitutionality of Canada's divorce laws that only allowed a man and woman to be divorced. The decisions which redefined marriage to include same-sex couples created this dilema by altering the definition of marriage. Canada's divorce laws presupposed a heterosexual definition of marriage.

Posted by: jhuck at August 6, 2005 2:27 PM

Unintended consequences indeed... When the new GG trumpets "tolerance" as the prime Canadian virtue (a "virtue" that isn't one of the, gasp, historical/Biblical virtues), and the country's greatest asset as the fact that it's "changing," that pretty well sums up Trudeaupia.

Unfortunately, a society that tolerates everything (other than that deemed by its intellectual rulers as "intolerant") ends up tolerating anything, an unintended consequence that Messrs. Blair and Chirac are belatedly trying to address.

Posted by: Drained Brain at August 6, 2005 2:31 PM

Is this the beginning of the end of spousal benefits? (Hope springs eternal.)

Posted by: Sean at August 6, 2005 2:56 PM

Stephen - It appears to me the multiple spouses is already legal in Canada. At least that fundamentalist mormon nut in Creston BC has not been charged with polygamy (or any related offence) and he has somehere in the neighborhood of 20 wives, some are also under age. If the law turns a blind eye - I'd say that de facto multiple spouses is legal. He has been investigated for many things over the years, but never arrested.

Posted by: sheila at August 6, 2005 2:57 PM

"This isn’t a SSM issue. this is two knobs looking for attention."

As opposed to SSM issues where guys are getting married and attending to each others' knobs?

Posted by: Sean at August 6, 2005 3:03 PM

Do y'all have a particular intention as to which of the 16 primary definitions of the word "love" (Webster's 3rd) y'all are referring to?

Posted by: Tony at August 6, 2005 3:03 PM


You go guys, go!

Horny Toad

We straight,were great and we can pro-create!!

Posted by: Horny Toad at August 6, 2005 3:36 PM


Solving Trodwell's Problem

Trodwell suggests we don’t have a word for people taking advantage of stoopid Liberal policies and laws that can lead to all sorts of unexpected weirdness.

Unexpected to all but Rightthinkers, that is, who know exactly what happens once the socialist engineering ball starts rollin’. Check RTP Archives for scintillating and expert commentary on the issue.

So, the word we’re looking for?

How about Libortunism?

We now have a word, and Rightthinkers will be using it accordingly.>>

Libortunism courtesy of the Librano$$$$$$$$

Posted by: maz2 at August 6, 2005 4:15 PM

What about those of us who prefer our significant other(s) to be furry and four-legged? I've found my cats to be far more entertaining than some of the guys I've dated lately, and I am getting on - no intention of having kids, etc. I could use the write-off. I mean, since we're redefining family be redefining marriage, makes sense, doesn't it?

Posted by: Iron Lady at August 6, 2005 4:39 PM

Well, I don't want kids either. Perhaps someday you and I, Iron Lady...

In the meantime, perhaps I, too, shld. consider getting a four-legged furry "life partner"... I could also use a write-off... :-)

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 5:03 PM

Speaking of unintended consequences, am I now entitled to non procreative sex. After all, the all seeing and all knowing Parliment of Canada has sanctified the practice by granting the rite of marriage to homosexual couples. An example:

Lets suppose I... um, better yet someone else, impregnates a member of the opposite sex. Could I... ahem he, not argue that to pay child support would be unfair because he was under the impression that they were involved in unprocreative sex. If homosexuals are granted this privilege, shouldn't my charter rights allow me... er, him the same access to non second class citizenry?

If this arguement were attempted, I doubt PMPM's courts would give it the time of day. That said I would still like to see the attempt.

Posted by: jason at August 6, 2005 5:52 PM

Gary Dunford, ( of the Toronto Sun), has expressed his intention of marrying his dog-he sez they already have a 'pre-nuptual agreement'.
Has the MSM gotten around to interviewing the dog yet? Has Dunf and his dog had spiritual councelling at the church of their choice, yet?
(But- not all is lost in trivia on this topic: "Libortunism" That's just priceless!
Way to go, Maz2!

Posted by: dave at August 6, 2005 6:28 PM

Why not?

Who says those dudes can't be straight and love each other right. We just want the same rights as gays...

As Darth Ujjal once said...
"Look, I want a tax cut toooooooooooo!"

Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at August 6, 2005 6:56 PM

If the dudes in question are denied the right to marry, then that denial will be irrefutable proof of discrimination against straights. If two homo guys can marry but two hetero guys cannot, then the hetero guys' rights are being violated.

This is the Pandora's Box Paul Martin opened simply to curry favor with inner urban voters comprising a relative density of ridings. Damn the unforeseen consequences. He's too old to live to see the folly of his action. What does he care? What does the left care about future generations? Gawd, they're so damn selfish, those Lib-lefties!

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 7:12 PM

Ah...I love it! We’re now coming full circle back to the original reason for marriage in the first place – politics and economics! What goes around, comes around :-)!

Posted by: outwest at August 6, 2005 7:16 PM

Flea, even under current law conditions in the US, any person can grant anyone power of attorney, designate anyone as a beneficiary, and essentially organize their affairs as they wish. You pose a false argument.

Liberals like to pretend the world just started spinning. For the entire history of mankind, marriage was a union between a man and woman. You find that inconvenient so you shove your own ideas about how things should be down everyone else's throat. What about the rights of those who prefer beastiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia?

Posted by: Tom Penn at August 6, 2005 7:25 PM

boy if this is ok i guess i can marry my motorcycle or my dog, both have treated me better than my wive ever did

Posted by: alan at August 6, 2005 7:27 PM

Sean, your posting is a hoot!!!!!!!!!speaking of "knobs" aa

Posted by: Jake at August 6, 2005 7:43 PM

From now until the election, we must find ways to make a mockery of any and every policy the Librano$ come up with. This story has legs, as they say. If I had a legal background, I'd be looking for ways to tie up the courts with stupid Liberal pet tricks, or something like that. Good for the Toronto Sun. You wouldn't see this story in the Star or Sob & Wail.

Posted by: Iron Lady at August 6, 2005 7:57 PM

Iron Lady, that brings me to another post I did on the Meat Puppet thread. Here it is:

Myself, I'm getting the idea that us conservative-minded Cdns. who care about getting fair and balanced treatment of important issues should consider buying up the MSM. If we all pooled our investment resources, perhaps we could buy up, what are they called, Bell Globemedia and Canwest Global? Why settle for the blogosphere? Why not take over? The Libs will still have the CBC (but not if I have my way).

What do you think of this? Taking over the media ourselves? Why not? If China can buy up our industries, why can't we Canadians ourselves buy an industry from other Cdns?

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 8:10 PM

Perhaps we shld start organizing peaceful but attention-getting demonstrations and marches that bring media attention to the wrongdoing of the Librano$. It works for the Lib-left, so why not for us? No nudity, of course, and no knee-high black socks and sandals either! :-) Of course, it would help if the media were fair and balanced.

Then we Conservatives would sweep the country.

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 8:15 PM

OOps, Iron Lady, the posting I reposted for you was originally done in the thread about Jean Lapierre's lips, not the one about the meat puppet.

Huh. Although I wasn't trying to make it so, that sounds kinda dirty, doesn't it? Oh well, we're talking about a Librano, so nothing surprises anymore, I guess...

Posted by: Stephen McAllister at August 6, 2005 8:24 PM

Ummm.... I hate to ask, but what are the tax advantages to being married? I've been married for eight years. Have had kids for three years.
We're still getting reamed up the wazoo tax-wise.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say.

Posted by: Lickmuffin at August 6, 2005 10:28 PM

Brilliant post Kate

Posted by: Duke at August 6, 2005 11:16 PM

Pretty assinine effort, if you ask me. I fail to see how this shows SSM as a farce as claimed. 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.


Posted by: TB at August 6, 2005 11:40 PM

... meant to say... "here, at The Shotgun, over at Dissonance and Disrespect"

Posted by: TB at August 6, 2005 11:43 PM

Iron lady, you obviously haven't met my Llama, Larry. He's a looker. But, sorry, he's mine.

Horny Toad

Were sdtraight, were great and we can pro-create!

Posted by: Horny Toad at August 7, 2005 1:46 AM

So TB, its OK for queers to make a fuss but not straights.
Get stuffed.

Horny Toad

Were straight, were great and we can pro-create/

Posted by: Horny Toad at August 7, 2005 1:53 AM

So, Kate, what's up with the SSM fixation? It's not like you, um, have a dog in this fight. >:-)

Posted by: Sean at August 7, 2005 2:05 AM

You wouldn't mind checking how many SSM posts there are in the over 2400 here, would you?

(I want to get a handle on what qualifies as "fixation".)

And what is it about being single that precludes one from having an opinion on marriage? That's as absurd as stating that only pregnant couples should be able to express views on abortion.

Posted by: Kate at August 7, 2005 8:30 AM

We have masses here where pets are blessed, so why not have a formal ceremony at the same recognizing the sanctity of the alternative family? The Dalai Martin's reach is wide and great - one of many loves and mega tax benefits.

Posted by: Iron Lady at August 7, 2005 11:26 AM

I think they should get married and when they find a couple of nice gals, they should just have them join the marriage and make it polygamous. Then everyone shares in the wealth.

It will be interesting to see what will be taught in the schools in the coming years with respect to social studies involving the family.

I wish this had happened years ago because my cat has been missing for over 4 years now and I think I should be entitled to collect on spousal insurance benefits since I think he's dead.

Posted by: Aizlynne at August 7, 2005 12:04 PM

Aizlynne, was he a vet(eran)? You'd be entitled to survivor benefits then, wouldn't you? I see great potential here. The Dalai Irwin is a man of great vision when it comes to justice, the law and human/pet rights. Lookin' good Mr. Cotler.

Posted by: Iron Lady at August 7, 2005 12:27 PM

If I married my laptop, and got mad one day and dropped it 3 stories from my balcony, and smashed it's face on the concrete. Could I be charged with murder?

Just checking, cause I like my laptop, don't love it, and am planning on taking out life insurance and maybe enter into marriage, cause it serves my needs. Definitely not a sexual thing, I think I would have to marry a condum for that.

Posted by: rob at August 7, 2005 1:16 PM

"I want to get a handle on what qualifies as "fixation"."

Any arbitrary number that I can give you the gears over. :-)

"That's as absurd as stating that only pregnant couples should be able to express views on abortion."

I'd rather leave it to women to decide -- they're the ones carrying around the kids. Perhaps not so absurd.

Posted by: Sean at August 7, 2005 9:42 PM

Sean, pregnancy is the result of male & female activity. For men to absent themselves from the abortion debate is as irresponsible as to absent themselves from the lives of their children. All of society has a stake in children because they grow up to be our nurses and doctors and pharmacists and dentists and grocery clerk etc who serve us in our old age. Feminists have declare men persona non grata in the abortion debate by accusing them of trying to control women's bodies but that is a silly comment akin to accusing anyone who objects to ssm of 'homophopia'.


Posted by: Caitrin Malone at August 8, 2005 10:36 AM

The happy couple will be registered at Canadian Tire, I'm sure. BTW, does the Canadian law have Gay Divorce worked out?

Posted by: eLarson at August 9, 2005 12:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill at August 9, 2005 12:14 PM

The happy couple will be registered at Canadian Tire, I'm sure. BTW, does the Canadian law have Same-Sex Divorce worked out?

Posted by: eLarson at August 9, 2005 12:17 PM