Angry in the Great White North

A message from Bryan Pinn, the straight man set to marry Bill Dalrymple, just for the tax benefits:

As one of the protagonists of the tale, it's illuminating to observe this discussion, and the many spins taken here. To correct some misconceptions, the following is taken from a letter I sent to the journalist who wrote the original article.

"...this was born as a whimsical socio-political “what if?”, our own small Creemore-fueled satirical skit, and it’s being spun to fit all kinds of agendas and world views.

In retrospect, if we had an underlying point to make, perhaps it was to show that social engineering, performed on or for one sector of a society, creates unanticipated ripples that wash upon all shores.

The issue of financial benefits wasn’t on the radar when first we kicked this around at the bar. In fact, there'd be little, if any, financial advantage if Bill and I did marry.

The real issue, it seems to me, is that the worthy effort to replace an exclusionary law came up with a law that could only be ALL-inclusive — a law that enables anyone to marry anyone. Were the ramifications of that thought through? (And, if they were, what does that say about Liberal social engineering?)

The previous law had to change, should’ve changed long ago. (When did P.E.T say “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation?” 1969?) Now, 30-something years on, with an election looming, methinks political expediency drove a too hasty writing of new law because...

judging from much of the response on the internet, had the lawmakers avoided the word “marriage” and used “civic union” or “interdependent relationship”, much of the opposition to same-sex law would have been quieted. “Marriage” is the red-flag word. And they didn’t even need to say “same sex” (But then, even with gender-neutral wording, they still open the door to hetero men or women forming legally recognized union. Hmmm...)

A second interview? Regretfully, I have to decline. A second hit, for me, smacks too much of self-promotion. Two clowns milking their Warhol minutes. We’re not poster boys for anyone’s cause. If political mayhem breaks out over this, we don’t want to be the tethered goats. We seem to have held the guvmint up to ridicule, and now we want to quietly walk away. Somebody was going to expose the law. It happened to be us. Now it’s out there... "Discuss amongst yourselves".

As for me ’n Bill... we’ve called it off. It would never have worked. He hangs his wet socks in the shower. LOL"

For those who think we're heretics, homophobes, gutless closet queens, destroyers-of-civilization-as-we-know-it or bottom-feeding-beer-swilling-freeloaders-on-honest-taxpayers...

Hey, if that's your movie...and that's OK – we already have enough poisonous messages to keep us amused for months.

For those who debate politely whatever issues they find in the tale, thanks... it's nice to think we sparked the exchange. Hindsight's perfect, but we never thought a letter to the editor would be taken seriously, let alone take on a global life of its own. But our world needs inter- and intra-communication more than ever before, and I have no problem saying that my own grasp of the subject was pretty shallow prior to this past week.

And to those who caught the whimsy and spotted the only target, bless yer hearts! The scenario was entirely hypothetical. Why ruin a great friendship by marrying?

Peace and love, guys

Bryan

So this was just a joke? Stir up some controversy and "quietly walk away"? Nice.

Now I have to go return the blender.

But even if these guys were just having everyone on, the fact is, there is nothing in the law, or for that matter in the nearly depleted pool of what notions are considered acceptable by society, to have prevented such a union, or to prevent one in the future.

So now we wait for the next story, when we'll all wonder if it's a joke, too. Because there is nothing that says it has to be.