Same Sex Marriage – Implications

August 6, 2005 · By

Via Nealenews, the Toronto Sun reports on two dudes getting married.

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.

Comments

13 Responses to “Same Sex Marriage – Implications”

  1. balbulican on August 6th, 2005 2:52 pm [#]

    Wow. So it turns out that it’s the heterosexuals who are getting married for money, not the gays. And here I thought the heteros (err…like me) were appalled at the cynical reiterpretation of an institution they felt was too sacred to mess with.

    Fascinating study in hypocrisy…thanks for drawing our attention to it.

  2. George Freeman on August 6th, 2005 4:08 pm [#]

    I’m afraid I don’t see how this is a “fascinating study in hypocrisy”. Now that same-sex marriage is the law, the state’s recognition of the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman has already been nullified. I think this story is more about opportunism than it is anything else. These “two dudes” are only doing what any other couple of “dudes” are now privileged to partake of, they are getting married, reaping the financial benefits that will ensue.

    Balbulican, I find it discriminatory and intolerant that you would judge the sanctity of a marriage between best friends when, by the sounds of it, you couldn’t bring yourself to uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Who are you to judge anyone or anything, on counts of hypocrisy or otherwise? When one forgoes common sense and basic distinctions by nature in categorising different human relationships, they also leave behind any ground they once had to justify their ideological construction of human sexuality. Just because these two are not pathologically driven homosexuals should not disqualify them from partaking in the financially rewarding and meaningless union that marriage has become.

    This couple constitutes two persons under the law, and are two persons who seem to care enough about each other to get married, so why not? This was the justification given for same-sex marriage, was it not? When it comes to hypocrisy, who are you to judge?

  3. Tom Cerber on August 6th, 2005 4:11 pm [#]

    Here’s the difference: before C-38, 2 heteros getting married for tax benefits is acknowledged as an abuse of the institution of marriage. Due to marriage’s redefinition by C-38, what was formerly abuse is now the definition of marriage.

  4. Speller on August 6th, 2005 4:16 pm [#]

    balbulican, do you know for sure this hetero “couple” didn’t support SSM?

    “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.”

    This appears, other than the tax benefit, to be their motive. Opposition to STATISM.

    “There are obvious tax benefits to marriage, they said, but insisted they don’t want their nuptials to insult homosexuals.” SUN MEDIA

    You know, balbulican, there were heteros who supported SSM just as there were homos who were against it.

    I’m sure there are homos who have gotten married primarily for the tax benefits as well.

  5. balbulican on August 7th, 2005 6:43 am [#]

    “Balbulican, I find it discriminatory and intolerant that you would judge the sanctity of a marriage between best friends when, by the sounds of it, you couldn’t bring yourself to uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.”

    Wrong. I fully updhold the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman, and have for the nineteen years of my monogamous, heterosexual marriage.I also uphold the sanctity of a a marriage between loving, monogamous gay couples who make the same commitment to each other as my wife and I did.

    “balbulican, do you know for sure this hetero “coupleâ€? didn’t support SSM?”

    Gee, just a funny feeling. I don’t recall anyone, gay or straight, supporting SSM on the basis of the tax breaks it would allow.

    Shall we get real now? Both this article, and my response, are political theatre. This “couple” will not get married, and I will cheerfully, and formally, bet any amount of money you care to wager on that (my hotmail address is balbulican@hotmail.com). They’re making a political point, in a very amusing way . But don’t insult me by pretending this is anything more than a funny idea dreamed up in a bar and grabbing some delighted conservative coverage.

  6. George Freeman on August 7th, 2005 9:38 am [#]

    Balbulican, how can two dudes make the same commitment you and your wife did? There’s no wife in a gay marriage, just two dudes. I fail to see how you can draw any equivalency, besides the number two—which goes for upteen other types of human relationships. Face it, equating marriage with gay marriage is absurd.

  7. balbulican on August 7th, 2005 9:57 am [#]

    “Balbulican, how can two dudes make the same commitment you and your wife did?”

    Well, George, the commitment Valerie and I made was to love, comfort, honour and cherish each other, continually bestowing upon each other our heart’s deepest devotion,in sickness and in health, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sadness and in joy, foresaking all others, as you both shall live until death to us part.

    Two dudes (or dudettes) can, and do, make that commitment. If the two aforementioned dudes are prepared to take those vows, and mean them, in front of witnesses and a JP or clergyman, then in my opinion (and now under law), they’re married.

  8. George Freeman on August 7th, 2005 11:24 am [#]

    On the point of tax breaks, the lower courts found that the tradition definition of marriage discriminated against gay couples under the equality rights of the Charter. What was discriminatory? It was discriminatory that a married couple could get benefits, namely tax breaks, that a homosexual couple could not. Again, this is fundamentally flawed reasoning.

    The lower courts are out to lunch, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the tradition definition of marriage could breach the rights of gay couples to equal treatment under the law. By definition, a homosexual couple IS NOT equivalent to a heterosexual couple, so how could they be entitled to equal treatment under the law?

    Balbulican, if you can think of how these relations are equivalent, then please share—I’m itching to know.

  9. CIVITATENSIS » Same Sex Marriage - Implications on August 7th, 2005 11:47 am [#]

    […] Crossposted to ThePolitic.com. […]

  10. Mark [Section 15] on August 8th, 2005 12:19 am [#]

    George,

    Actually, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1995 that the state certainly can restrict benefits based upon a couple’s inherent ability to procreate. Why the traditional definition of marriage violated Section 15 is simply because it prohibited consenting adults from signing a marriage certificate if they were of the same sex. Most, if not all, fiscal benefits of marriage did not have to flow to SSM couples. The Liberals just did it anyway.

    It is recognized that procreation is separate from marriage, and that tangible state benefits available to married couples are separate from marriage as well.

    So the option existed to not allow SSM couples to claim the basic spousal deduction, for example. That deduction is separate from the issue of marriage.

    It’s a debate we never really had because we were fixated upon whether the definition of marriage could or should be changed.

    I only think that tax deductions and tax credits related to marriage should be given to couples who either can reproduce between them, or have one or more children they care for. That would mean that SSM couples could only claim such benefits if they have children. Hetero married couples could continue to qualify for other benefits, such as the spousal deduction.

    My source is Egan v Canada, 1995.

  11. George Freeman on August 8th, 2005 1:53 am [#]

    Mark,

    Thanks for your detailed response. However, I’m afraid I don’t entirely follow the logic. Maybe you can help me.

    If it is the case that SSM is equivalent to traditional marriage, how, without breaching equality rights, could traditional married couples have claimed benefits such as the spousal deduction while SSM couples could not?

    As you mention:
    “Why the traditional definition of marriage violated Section 15 is simply because it prohibited consenting adults from signing a marriage certificate if they were of the same sex.”

    Do marriage certificates not carry any legal implications, namely tax benefits? If you have a marriage certificate can you not automatically claim the benefits of marriage when you file your tax return with CCRA?

    If the court is saying that heterosexual couples are equivalent to homosexual couples in the ability to get a marriage certificate, why would they cease to be equivalent when it comes to deriving the state offered benefits of marriage? Are not the state benefits more significant than the certificate?

    Regardless, the very notion of same sex marriage being in anyway, whatsoever, equivalent to traditional marriage is ridiculous? The MOST important question remains: how can relations between one man and one woman, two men, or two women possibly be equivalent to each other besides the numerical value of two? This is the question that remains unanswered, and as it seems to me can’t be answered because there is nothing more that is equivalent about them. And if is just “two”, then what is so great about “two”, why not “three”, or “four”, etc.? Marriage is now a nonsense term in Canadian law, devoid of any grounding in common sense! And when courts lose their ground in common sense they cease to adjudicate or offer solutions to questions of law. They can no longer make any sense of how the law impacts society.

    Again, not to sound like a broken record, although I know I do, I just think the jurisprudence on SSM is complete nonsense. There is no possible way the traditional definition of marriage could have breached s. 15 because there is nothing equivalent about it to SSM, that is if we take the definition of “sex” to mean what it means (and note that “sex” is actually written in s. 15 unlike “sexual orientation”).

  12. Explooited on September 8th, 2005 11:01 pm [#]

    Program on the emergence of civilization.

    “14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
    13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
    None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
    Favor.
    And disfavor.

    They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

    The roots of racism are not of this earth.

    Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

    The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

    AIDS in Africa.

    Organizational Heirarchy
    Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

    1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
    2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
    3. Mafia (evil) aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (“On planets where they approved evil.”)

    Terrestrial management:

    4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
    5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
    6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
    7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

    Survival of the favored.

    Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
    1986 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

    They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
    1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
    2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.

    Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files

  13. ThePolitic - Canadian Political Weblog » Blog Archive » Anglicans Discover Friendship! on September 26th, 2005 7:53 pm [#]

    […] According to Mark Vernon, one of the things raised in recent debates surrounding same-sex marriage/blessings is the status of Platonic friendships. This is a question I’ve raised on countless occasions and I’m pleased other people are asking it. I note that there’s even a name for the politically correct tendency to avoid raising the point: platonophobia, hatred of platonic friendships based on the irrational insistence that our most profound way of relating to others must be sexual. […]