From the Register:We're sure that most Reg readers don't object to gay marriage as long as it doesn't frighten the horses, but we wonder if that liberal sentiment extends to heterosexual same-sex union? We'll find out soon enough, because Canadians Bill Dalrymple, 56, and chum Bryan Pinn, 65 have decided to tie the knot, the Ottawa Sun reports.Although Pinn is reported as calling the impending nuptials a "hoot", there is good business sense behind the proposal. Pinn adds: "There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through." Indeed, the pair want to "shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new [gay marriage] legislation and are willing to take it all the way". Well, not quite all the way, because there will be no consummation of this particular union. The two have, though, checked that there are "no laws in marriage that define sexual preference".
Dalrymple and Pinn conclude by saying their upcoming wedding is not intended as a slight to gays and lesbians. However, gay and lesbian rights activist Bruce Walker warned: "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love. People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble," although he gamely conceded: "If someone wants to do something foolish, let them do it." ®
I may be wrong, but I think if you get married to another man, you're gay, whether you've ever smoked pole in your life or not. Judges?
| It sounds to me like these two are practical jokers who believe the "gay marrige" debate is more about getting government benefits and less about being in love. |