Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,
In every speech I gave last year supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution, I predicted that if legally redefined, marriage would eventually be devalued into nothing more than a financial calculation, a means by which new and various combinations of individuals could access financial benefits at taxpayers’ expense. This multiplicity of newly-endowed beneficiaries will carry a price tag, and taxpayers will be forced to pay it…a practical secular reason why marriage should remain only between one man and one woman. Now that Canada has destroyed that legal definition, watch for polygamy and even more new government beneficiaries to follow. Legally, on what basis can the Canadian government deny the next special interest group its demand that marriage be redefined again?
New York, New York
August 8, 2005
Queer Aisle for Straight Guys
They’re just friends now … but they’d like to be “friends with benefits.”
According to the Ottawa Sun, Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out Canada’s new same-sex marriage (search) legislation with a twist Ã¢â‚¬â€ they’re straight men.
“I think it’s a hoot,” Pinn said.
The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two Ã¢â‚¬â€ both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love Ã¢â‚¬â€ insist that after the humor 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.
They want to shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new legislation and are willing to take it all the way.
There are obvious tax benefits to marriage, they said, but they insisted they don’t want their nuptials to insult gays and lesbians.
“I disagree with the government getting involved with what people should and shouldn’t do,” Dalrymple said. “Stay out of the bedrooms.”
Words of warning came 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.”
Walker isn’t personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights.
“If someone wants to do something foolish, let them do it,” he said.
As for wedding plans, Pinn and Dalrymple haven’t set a date.