September 1, 2005

STRAIGHT CASH TRANSACTION (via Robert Schwartz):

Wedding cashers: Straight pals want to marry - for tax breaks (LESLEY WRIGHT, 8/06/05, TORONTO SUN)

WHAT'S LOVE got to do with it?

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.


Wouldn't it be discriminatory to not let straight men marry each other?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 1, 2005 8:17 PM
Comments

Has Andrew's head exploded yet? Or is he laughing, too?

I'll bet the gay fringe is apoplectic.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 1, 2005 8:35 PM

Oh, now that's a good story. "I'm not gay. I'm just tax savvy."

Posted by: David Cohen at September 1, 2005 10:40 PM

Actually, Joe Blundo, a very funny guy and a columnist for the Columbus Dispatch predicted this 18 months ago:

Friday, March 12, 2004
FEATURES - ACCENT & ARTS 01G
By Joe Blundo
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
SAME-SEX UNIONS ATTRACTIVE TO HETEROSEXUALS
So To Speak is venturing into the future to see how the controversy over same-sex marriage turned out. Here's a report from 2006:

Same-sex marriage, legalized in December 2004 by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in O'Donnell v. Ashcroft, has changed the face of the nation. As expected, thousands of gay couples wed in the months after the ruling. Protests diminished as people grew accustomed to seeing two little grooms atop the wedding cake. What no one foresaw was that same-sex marriage would catch on with heterosexuals, too.

Men, weary of trying to please women, married their drinking buddies. Women, fed up with uncommunicative men, wed their confidantes.

Typical of the heterosexual marriage partners are Lenny and George of Columbus. Both 23, they have been married a year and say they are a contented couple, though with separate bedrooms.

"It's just easier to be married to a guy," George said. "Women are always bugging you to talk to them. All I have to do for Lenny is grunt at him a couple of times a day. Plus, I'm covered by his health insurance."

They met in 2005, when both were working at a warehouse and struggling to make ends meet. One night, while having a few beers after a softball game, one of them facetiously suggested that they should marry.

"It started as a joke," George said. "But then we began looking at the advantages: We could register at Ace Hardware for wedding gifts. We could get cheaper car insurance. And whenever a girlfriend started bugging me to make a commitment, I could say, 'Sorry, already married.' "

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 2, 2005 2:27 AM

I had condidered a comment based on the Abraham Lincoln quote about calling a dog's tail a leg, but decided not to go there.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 2, 2005 10:21 AM

Exactly. If you disengage marriage from its basis on reproductive biology, then it loses its purpose and merely becomes a form of tax shelter. Since people can divorce any time, it's not like there is any commitment. And even for religious folks, assuming the marriage is only done by an agent of the government, it's probably not even considered valid and therefore does not affect the real marriage later on.

If this is the case, then why shouldn't roommates marry to get the same tax benefits? Or brother and sister for that matter, as they already have undeniable bonds to each other and may appreciate the tax break early on in life?

Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 2, 2005 11:33 AM

I believe that the idea of reproductive biology as a basis for marriage to be laughable. I am, in fact, able to reproduce whether married or not. I am also, in fact, able to reproduce even without a man in the room at the time of conception.

Love, fidelity, and a deep commitment to creating and nurturing a family--whether biologically related or not, whether children are involved or not--are what I hope the basis of any marriage I would be involved in would be.

I'm envious of people who are opposed to legalizing same-gender marriage. I guess you folks must have such an excess of love in your lives that some of it has to be "disqualified."

Posted by: Kelly Singleton at September 3, 2005 4:11 AM

Ms Singleton:

Marriage is a social institution, not a personal one. There is no social value to the relationships you want to give a social imprimatur, indeed, they're evil.

Posted by: oj at September 3, 2005 8:11 AM
« SAM'S CLUB: | Main | IF ONLY HE'D GRASPED THAT INFLATION WAS WHIPPED: »