health insurance costs, the idea of providing health care for the spouse of an employee is to better society by allowing someone to stay home and raise children and still be covered by health insurance.
And what of couples with no children? Should they not recieve spousal health benefits? This was just for the folks who chose to take on the financial responsibility of having a child?
once you have gay marriages employers will be required to aknowledge these 'marriages' even if they find them moraly wrong. I suspect many will stop providing healthcare for dependants to avoid the issue. or they could just stop providing it at all. even if they don't have a moral problem with it the increased financial cost might just make it to expensive to continue.
Yeah, if employers choose to provide health coverage for their employees, they'll have to extend it to anyone lawfully married. I fail to see how or why this is a bad thing. Or don't gays deserve health care either? Hey, maybe we could just allow employers to exclude gays/blacks/asian/whatever from their health plans if they don't like who they are or what they do at home. Surely, this would save employers billions nationwide! Fortunately, not all employers are so bigoted that they would stop providing health care altogether rather than providing it to gays who work for them and their spouses. My employer is one of them...they currently extend health benefits to domestic partners, hetero or homo.
also, since it's nobodys bussiness what goes on (or not) in a married couples bed, whats to stop friends or roommates from setting up'marriages' (with a nice pre-nup to assure the other person can't take you financially) to get tax benifits or healthcare for the uninsured person.
The same thing that's stopping men and women friends from getting married for tax and healthcare benefits. Some might, most won't...why would it be any different?
if enough people do this they will have to raise everyones taxes to compensate. effectively doing away with the lower rate for maried couples, making it financially harder on children.
Last I checked, gay people pay taxes too. They don't deserve the same tax benefits that you do? Frankly, I find it hard to understand why my tax dollars are going to support your kid. It was your choice to have a kid afterall, and I don't remember you asking me if it was OK.
historicaly gay relationships have been less stable (there have been exceptions), plus we get the ones that where designed to be temporary (the ones described in the last 2 paragraphs). sorting out these break-ups would further load down our courts.
Historically (in the US...anything beyond that is irrelevant), being openly gay meant getting openly ridiculed and possibly beaten. Probably kind of hard to maintain a relationship with the constant need to keep it in the closet and having everyone around you tell you that studmuffins are sick deviants that are going to hell. As for adding a burden to our courts? That's great...shall we make that they deciding factor in any issue facing this country henceforth?
SOB
