Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author, and book reviewer.

Tim Challies

Challies on FacebookChallies on Twitter

A Marriage of Fiscal Convenience

In what is destined to be a failed marketing tactic, the Toronto Sun, a Toronto newspaper (remember newspapers - those odd book-like objects we used to read before we had high-speed Internet access) has been dropping their Sunday edition on my doorstep. This is one of those tabloid-esque newspapers that culminates on the final page with a nearly-naked woman (The Sunshine Girl). The final interior page is always a picture of a bikini-clad woman along with a little bio to try to convince the reader that there is more to her than an airbrushed body. Based on childhood memories (when bikini-clad pictures in newsprint held far more allure than they do today) the average bio reads, “Sparky is a capricorn who enjoys hot coffee, cold ice cream and long walks along the beach. She is currently a bartender but hopes to someday be a marine biologist. She would never, ever, ever date someone like you, so don’t even bother.” Somewhere in the paper there is also a Sunshine Boy - perhaps stuck among the fifteen or twenty pages of “adult only” advertisements. He always looks like he was clipped from a WalMart catalog and is there only to ward off charges of sexism. At any rate, this paper is an absolute rag.

When I returned home from the cottage on the weekend, I found newspapers all over my front step. I had asked me neighbour to collect the mail, which he did, but for some reason he must have thought that our verbal contract did not include the collection of newspapers. Perhaps he is unionized. I took all the newspapers and tossed them into the recycling pile without giving them as much as a second glance. This morning I was taking out some really horrible-smelling trash (did you know that cucumbers can liquify if left in the fridge long enough?) a headline on the cover of the Sun caught my eye. The front page had a picture of two straight men with the caption “Straight to the Altar.” Below the picture it said, “Best pals Bryan Pinn, left, and Bill Dalryimple are definitely not gay, but they’re planning on getting married to take advantage of the tax benefits.”

Wow. I have to admit that when the Canadian government dismantled marriage I did not see it falling so far, so quickly. The story begins:

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.

Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

The great irony in this story is that Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist, has issued a warning in defense of marriage. “Generally speaking,” he says, “marriage should be for love. People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” The irony is palpable.

As a lawyer and activist Walker worked tirelessly to dismantle the God-given plan for marriage and replace it with a fraudulent shadow of what it ought to be. God, as Creator, defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. End of story. We have no right to tamper with this God-given ordinance.

The term “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron, and a tragic one at that. A heterosexual marriage of fiscal convenience is no better. In Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, Al Mohler writes, “The fact that homosexual marriage is even an issue for public debate demonstrates that we are a civilization in crisis, because a great many barriers must be breached in order to put this question on the cultural agenda. Firewalls, traditions, habits, and convictional practices must fall before marriage can be redefined and utterly transformed by the inclusion of same-sex relationships” (page 105). Mohler correctly states that at the very heart of this debate is an attitude of moral rebellion that seeks to bring confusion to the God-given order of nature and that seeks to redesign human sexuality.

And now that we have tampered with God’s design for marriage, confusion reigns. Marriage has been taken from a sacred institution and been made into a mockery.

Bruce Walker, always the postmodernist, concludes with that hallmark of postmodern thought - feigned tolerance. “Walker isn’t personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights.” But don’t forget his warning that marriage should be about love. Katie who blogs at Outside the Beltway writes, “Having convinced a majority of Canadian MP’s that the ‘ability to procreate’ isn’t a defining characteristic of ‘marriage’, tell me - -what’s so damned special about ‘love’?”

Postscript - Rumor has it that after the story was printed the men decided to call off their union. I do not know if they merely wanted their fifteen minutes of fame or if they truly were planning to get married. Perhaps they still are. Regardless, this story highlights what can and no doubt will happen now that we have redefined marriage.