They’re two straight dudes who want the tax benefits of getting married:
“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.
“We heteros haven’t done a great job with marriage as it is,” Pinn said.
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 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.”
Their case illuminates how preposterous the newly “inclusive” definition of marriage is. If the new definition is about “recognizing” homosexuals, as activists say it is, then the state must necessarily determine whether or not these two are indeed homosexuals. However, since doing so would reveal the same sex marriage law for the statist piece of legislation that it is. So I doubt the licensing authorities are going to bother, which means that the new definition has reduced marriage to a utilitarian relationship united by shared tax benefits.
To sum, the new definition either invites massive state intrusion, or makes marriage meaningless. Perhaps not quite meaningless. It makes marriage into a civil union, which most of the opponents of same sex marriage wanted anyway.
Naturally, gay activists aren’t impressed by this:
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.”
I agree that people should marry for love. But the same sex marriage is not, and can never be, about love. Law is not about recognizing love, as I’ve argued previously.
UPDATE: London Fog has coined a new phrase (at least to me): those who object to these two dudes getting married – or deny its legitimacy – must be “hate filled platonophobes”. That may or may not be true, but his point illuminates the fallacy of SSM logic – it’s not about love, it’s about recognizing a certain kind of “sexual conduct legitimacy.” That is, “love,” as the gay activists like to frame it, must be expressed in a sexual manner. It cannot be Platonic.
Crossposted to Civitatensis.