NewsTue Aug 9, 2005 - 12:15 pm EST
Commentary: Two Canadian Straight Men Will ‘Marry’– It’s a Hoot!
Two self-professed straight (that is, heterosexual) Canadian men have made public their decision to get ‘married’ to one another. It was only a matter of time of course.
The Ottawa citizen reported on Sunday that, while sitting in a bar last week it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that what with both of them being single, apparently without any serious opposite-sex marriage prospects on the line, it wouldn’t be such a bad tax-saving idea to get hitched…to each other. Thanks to the newly instated civil marriage act, extending “marriage” rights to same-sex couples, that’s not a problem. And since the new act doesn’t include any discriminatory restrictions on ‘sexual preference’ (as if that could be measured anyway) the two thoroughly straight men seem to have a clear path to the altar.
“I think it’s a hoot,” said Bryan Pinn. And you can’t help agree that really, it is, as he says, ‘a hoot’. In fact, what’s really amazing is that in the context of new legislation it all makes a whole lot of sense, and that proves to be the funniest thing of all.
After some reflection, what is actually offensive is not that two straight men have decided to make use of the legislation and get married to one another, but that Bruce Walker, a Toronto area gay and lesbian rights activist, has dared to criticize them. “Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” He continued, calling Dalrymple and Pinn’s plan “foolish”.
It is offensive that Walker has the gall to imply that just because the two men don’t want to have sex with one another that their relationship is devoid of love; it is typical of the homosexual mind to believe that erotic love is the only love. ‘Old’ marriage vows mentioned sexuality insofar as a couple agreed to accept and rear children as a gifts from God; but Canada’s new marriage vows don’t say anything about sexual attraction or intercourse and who’s to say that they should? Certainly not Bruce Walker.
“Marriage”, now, as Canada has defined it and the pro-gay activists have consistently defended it, has absolutely nothing to do with copulation or sexuality or procreation and everything to do with ‘love’—not erotic love, just…love, of whatever kind.
And therefore, under the new federal legislation it is undeniable Dalrymple and Pinn have as much of a right as anybody else to publicly declare their intention before a justice of the peace to love the other until death do them part, and they have just as much of a right to be given a federal pat on the back for their admirable act. The liberal government has chosen, however foolishly, to grant special privileges to those who do exactly that, and by all accounts Canada is going to have to live with this reality, no matter where it leads.
Of course, some will ask in light of the impending marriage of Dalrymple and Pinn, where will it lead? And the answer, it is no secret, is quite ludicrously far.
Add to the story about Dalrymple and Pinn that of the Californian lesbian couple who desired to be recognized as legitimately married by the golf club one of them belongs to, so that the other could reap the spousal benefits the club offers, and you’ll get an idea of how far it will go. They won the case of course, before the Supreme Court, and now the one without the club membership can golf for free.
Free golf. What better reason could there be to get married? Maybe with that kind of a draw gay men will actually start taking advantage of the new federal legislation and contract the new pretend ‘marriage’.
Of course, it is doubtful that Dalrymple and Pinn’s decision to get married has anything to do with their love for one another. After all, Pinn came straight out criticized the same-sex “marriage” decision, pointing out that “there are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through;” tax implications that the pair are willing to exploit to make their point while saving a few bucks.
It is also doubtful that the farcical “marriage” of Dalrymple and Pinn will do anything to change Ottawa’s mind about same-sex “marriage”. At the most, all it does is gives pro-family activists a reason to sit back for a moment and have a good chuckle at the ridiculousness of the ideological fort that their opponents are guarding so stubbornly. And that, perhaps, is a good enough reason.