The Hoboken Cafe 

Bush officially supports the constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Good job, Dubya. What's next, a "final solution?" I hope Cheney's kid somehow turns your daughters into leather dykes.

Bush's decision was perfectly timed. The ill-planned civil disobedience of the SF weddings and Janet's booby pissed off the hard right and some moderates.

This is 1969 again. Criminal president in a questionable war, gay rights protest explosion, and nudity inflaming censors. In 10 years, we could see the return of leg warmers and day glo colors.

I haven't formed an opinion yet on Gay-Marriage. It would really help me if a few people from the gay community would come out and explain their reasoning for it and debate the issue.

Does it really matter if it's called a marriage or a union? Also if the reasoning is that it's wrong for the government to condemn relationships that are outside the Christian norm what about polygamy? Should polygamy be certified as legal and given status under the law?

I don't have the answers, I'm just surprised no one on the national stage is asking the questions.

The difference between Homosexuality and Polygamy is that Polygamy is a behavioral choice. Some religious folks disagree, but everyone knows they can not control what makes their soldier salute.

What should this have to do with any religious "norm?" Homosexuals are not looking to change others religious beliefs; they simply want to be treated equally.

Lawmakers should think about homosexual teens. Gay teens already commit suicide b/c they are ostracized by parents and peers. Telling them that they can not legally be accepted as adults will surely cause greater depression and possibly increase hate crimes.

It wasn't long ago that interracial marriage was illegal.

Frode-at least you are asking questions. That's more than most politicians will do.

No one is saying people can't be homosexual (okay there's probably a state or two with sodomy laws still on the books but they probably don't believe in evolution either so how seriously can you take them). What is being debated is how the law will treat two homosexuals who say they are a permanent monogamous couple.

Don't forget that marriage at its core is a religious event that has been co-opted by the state for it's own benefit.
So why should the homosexual community press for "marriage", which many people sympathetic to them oppose, when the same exact right can be conferred with a civil union?

I still think the polygamy question is a valid one. Why shouldn't 3 (or more) people who feel a deep connection to each other and wish to raise a family together get the same rights that 2 heterosexual people enjoy? Is it not hypocrisy to be for homosexual marriage and against polygamist unions?

Well, they are definite taking the religion vs state to issue here. There are two issues I see. And please note, I have no problem with gay marriages because to me, they are not really harming anyone.

1. Church vs. State and the entire morality issue. Obvious

2. Something I mentioned before on this site, Application of marriage benefits to alternative marriages. Not so obvious. Consider this. If we do allow alternative marriages, they get tax breaks, health benefits for spouses, and other nice benefits that traditional marriages get. Thus, if we as a society accept alternative marriages as a whole, your health benefits will go up (more coverage required in corporate insurance), taxes will have to accounted for and government spending will go up for pay for additional family/spousal services. If you assume 1 million gay marriages (I am making that statistic up for mathematical purposes), that is about 13 billion dollars that may not be taxed for 401Ks, 3 billion dollars going to IRAs, 3 billion in Tax credits, some other billions of dollars for head of household deduction, and some other billions of dollars in health benefits/costs.

Well said Josh.I couldn't agree more.

But why shouldn't gay couples be able to have tax breaks like straight couples? And have health plans? What about family plans (with more and more gay couples having or adopting children). Me? I've been married (to a man) and, really, it's not a lot of fun - so why should only straight couples have all the headaches? If Bush really hates gay couples, then he should ENCOURAGE them to get married...

LOL true dat.

What gets me is how Bush is leery of religious fundamentalism for the new Iraqi government but on the other hand is all for it in the next US government. His whole platform is based on the church's views on same-sex marriage and faith-based initiatives.

I am not saying they should not have tax breaks. I am saying it is an issue for people who have money may not wish to incur the extra expense. If you assume government spending remains the same, our deficit will become bigger or your tax breaks will be less.

Two comments:

First, the JJ criticism came from all over, not just the right. Even Spike Lee, not exactly a beacon of conservative thought, called it a new low.

Second, an issue that’s gone unspoken in the marriage debate is one of economics. One thing that a legal marriage contract allows is placing of that spouse on many employers’ health plans. Can you imagine the rush to sign up all the unemployed HIV+ buddies out there? If you think you’re already paying a lot for these benefits, just wait. And if you’re lucky, your health insurance co won’t go out of business as a result.

This may sound harsh, but I’m already irked that, by being a healthy person with healthy habits, I need to subsidize others who by choice or habit want to live an unhealthy lifestyle. And these are just smokers and/or sedentary food addicts (for example). Now I’m not trying to paint the entire homosexual community with the same brush and the truly monogamous aren’t the problem. Nevertheless risk factors ARE there. That combined with the human tendency to try to exploit the system (health insurance being a prime target already), I feel is a recipe for trouble.

I know some of you will call me cruel or other names but when the lifeboat is already overcrowded and taking on water sometimes tough choices need to be made.

Just my two cents. If anyone can refute this argument, I will be relieved to hear it.

Wow, it's late - what the hell am I doing up?

Let's pass an amendment barring anyone with a rap sheet from assuming the Presidency.

Many employers already allow employees to add on "partners" to their health benefit plans. I guess it depends on the company and the types of benefits you have but my understanding is that it is usually at an extremely high additional cost to the employee trying to add the partner (i.e. much more than if you were adding on a spouse).

Yeah but once these “partners” become legal spouses they won’t be “extremely high additional cost” paying partners anymore.

This moment in time is so fascinating and sorta scary. Seems that every few decades this country has to explode to obtain some positive changes. I wouldn't be surprised to see an assassination within the next few years, especially if the person is anti-war and/or pro-gay.

Homosexuals ought to protest with public displays of affection at government buildings: a great big Fag-In. I especially encourage lesbians.

IF you think that gay people will get married to just get healthcare - think again. When you're married you also get the other person's debt if they die - ie: HIV positive people. And what you're saying is that gay people will only get married to screw around with the system and not for love....And single people get better tax breaks by the way - just ask older couples who get F**ked by social security by getting married and find it's easier to live together than to get married...

Have you checked the HIV/AIDS stats lately?

Last I knew, there were probably more straight than gay people suffering with AIDS/HIV. Straight minority women being a disproportionate percentage, having picked it up from their partners allegedly straight partners.

Pls qualify how these people are living an unhealthy lifestyle?...being married or being in a relationship??

By allowing gay marriage,gays would be entitled to be with their spouses in the hospital (currently not happening as they are not considered family or next of kin. They would also be able to pass along their inheritance to their spouse.
I can think of a few gay friends who live a healthier and more loving lifestyle than some of the hetero's I know.
Fastlaine, you also make some good points.

You may check out statistics on the Center for Disease Control website:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stat-trends.htm

Of course, that assumes people behave rationally. However, if rationality and good planning were universal human traits, people wouldn’t end up with HIV in the first place. So you think that negative selection won’t happen. Unfortunately, I don’t have such a sanguine view on human behavior. I think that people will look to maximize their well being and minimize their costs for doing so. This is economics and sociology 101.

So I disagree with your premise. I say they will decide that desperate times call for desperate measures – get their sick buddy on meds and worry about long-term financial problems later.

So here we are in disagreement. I guess only time will tell which side of this turns out to be the better prediction.

But kudos for addressing the actual argument – unlike a certain other poster who will go unmentioned....

Have you checked the HIV/AIDS stats lately?

I just checked LB's link....

Cases by Exposure Category
Male-to-male sexual contact 420,790
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719
Heterosexual contact 135,628
Other* 20,869

But before I say anything more let me repeat my line that I’m not talking about genuine monogamous relationships. I AM speaking about marriages of convenience – pragmatic relationships with the same motivations of the “getting married to get him in the country” attitude.

Anyway, how did these statistics happen? Accident? Visitation of fate? Or could it be that there is something about a population behavior/lifestyle which causes this problem? If not that, then what? Unless there’s another cause, assume that this is what I mean by “unhealthy lifestyle.”

Insurance underwriting is all about risk factors and population statistics. HIV rates are indeed rising in non-homosexuals but if homosexual men, representing maybe 2% (I’ll update this number if someone can direct me to a more reliable figure) of the population, can account for 44% of total HIV transmission**, I say they are AS A GROUP high risk. As anyone who's bought an auto policy knows, higher risk = higher rates. To do otherwise, the carrier invites insolvency.

Look, as long as I’m not affected by someone’s choices, I really don’t care what they do. I have problems of my own. But IF there is a risk of financial impact for me, then I want those risks mitigated. That’s all.

Now, if someone can point out a fact like “preexisting conditions in spouses are not usually insurable” my point is moot and the argument collapses.

** http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=kb-01&doc=kb-01-03 - click on table 2

Curious question that sidetracks the conversation,
do you work for an insurance company?

Lawndart,

You make some good points from an actuarial stand point and I can appreciate that.
It seems naive, for lack of a better word, to think that allowing gay marriage will increase our insurance rates.
But, I am not a statistician (SP?).

The ban is not about financial risks. It's about prejudice, plain and simple.

Josh,
I think it goes both ways. As for George W., yes, its most likely prejudice.
But many of the posts on this board from us ordinary folk, do make excellent points about Finance/Insurance risks

Just my observation

exactly!