RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

Randy, I'm one of those conservative gay voters. I was a registered republican the day I turned 18. Sadly, that was just before the gop decided to bend over and take it up the keister from the religious right. Sorry, but that incestuous relationship was just a tad too immoral for me.

Until the gop grows a pair and informs their party that religious laws have no relevance in government and are to obeyed at home by those who choose to follow them, I will remain with the party that does the best job at treating me like a full citizen of this country.

It would appear that one of Allan Nichols' relations has arrived.

Well, neenie, there IS another posting on Newsvine tonight suggesting that incest be legalized, so perhaps a couple of them got loose? How many fingers and toes do you have, Stormn?

Yep, and from what it sounds like he/she/it needs their blanket, a box of juice and a nap.

Or perhaps some very intensive anger management and counselling!

The Raven,

I admire your optimism, but you make the assumption that Stormn can count.

Neenie,

How silly of me. I'd better be more careful in the future--imagine that---suggesting that Stormn could count. I must be getting sleepy.

Besides, at the rate things are going, it wouldn't surprise me if Michael Steele announces that optimists burden small business and I become vilified on Newsvine..

Well, I'll watch your back. I might have some pro-lifers after me for mentioning...sshhh...sex education and birth control.

Got that right...and I'll watch yours.

Tappy,

I'm waaaaaaay ahead of you. I refuse to believe anything Michael Steele says. Suggest you join.

Yes, there is a legal remedy, and it is to make it legal for all gay couples to have exactly the same rights as all heterosexual couples, including marriage--which would make the issue go away entirely.

AJ,

You are advocating separate water fountains, bathrooms, schools...etc. when you sum up your list with, “just like heterosexual couples who choose not to marry”. A gay couple can not CHOOSE to marry in most States, that proverbial section on the bus is for majority, (heterosexuals), only. Why should my marriage be OK’d by the State with one form but someone else’s needs a lawyer and a boat load of legal documents?

Oh and just as an aside, non gay couples can get the rights and protections of marriage with out getting a license in 15 or so States through the “common law” rout

Thehermit-My point is, it is not a civil rights issue, it's a monetary issue. Change the law on social security benefits, not marriage. Married Heterosexual couples also have to have living wills, estate wills, and consent forms for health proxy's.

Hi AJ,

(Married Heterosexual couples also have to have living wills, estate wills, and consent forms for health proxy's)? Those are good things to have but they are not required. My wife and I were together for 25 years till death did we part and at no point in that time did I acquire or need any of those documents to take care of her in sickness and in health or to use the estate assets we had gathered over the years to take care of the kids. All those things and many other benefits came with the form we filed with the State.

I was going to give a reply, Hermit, but you beat me to it and said that much better than I could.

aj:

How about the right to sponsor your partner for immigration? Heterosexual married couples can do that. Homosexual couples cannot. And no legal document can give them the right to do so.

How about the right not to have to testify against your spouse in courts? Heterosexual couples have that right. Homosexual couples do not, and no legal document can create it.

Yes, many marriage benefits do relate to money. But you delude yourself if you think that all of them do, or even that gays can duplicate the ones which do by "being responsible" like heterosexual couples who choose not to marry. No legal document can give homosexual couples the right to file taxes jointly, or to transfer property between them without taxation. As TheHermit already pointed out, heterosexual couples at least have the choice of marrying to receive these benefits. Homosexual couples do not have a choice in the matter.

You used analogies from the civil rights era in your argument, but you forgot the most relevant one, that of laws prohibiting "miscegenation" or mixed-race marriage. Our current laws prohibit gay couples from marrying each other, on the basis of gender, in the same way in which our laws once prohibited the Lovings from marrying each other on the basis of race. To truly remedy this, our laws must change, as they did after Loving v Virginia.

HI Katie, nice to see you again.

Meant to sum up my last post to AJ’s point that “it is not a civil rights issue“ with “this discussion is ALL ABOUT equal Civil Rights”. Guess I’m getting a little too deep into my cups. My diminishing mental & motor skills will probably sideline me soon. :-)

Fine. then heterosexuals should give up all the financial benefits they get by being married. Will you give up these benefits? If not why won't you? After all these are entitlements as you put it. You feel entitled to them do you not?

Your premise seems to be because there was no money involved in water fountain segregation that counts as discrimination. Yet when same sex couples are financially penalized (by having financial benefits that you no doubt enjoy denied to them) and they have less money available to take care of themselves and their families that is somehow not discrimination?

If the government decided to say... no longer allow married couples to file joint tax returns that would be fine by me. A step towards equality in fact. It's discrimination because one group can (and may financially beneift) and one group cannot and is thus denied equal treatment.

It's not about the dollars. It's about the equality. It's possible to be gay and be against entitlements. Absolutly. In fact if the GOP didn't have such a strong social conservative group within it driving anti-gay policies I'd bet there would be a lot more LGBT citizens voting for fiscally conservative polititions. I might even be one of them.

Each and every argument is in fact based on entitlements. When I was married some 25 years ago, I was married because I was in love, and wanted to raise a family. I wanted to take the vows and embrace the sanctity of marriage. Every reply written here is about money, not the vows of marriage and the meaning of the commitment. I was not, and have never, thought about what benefits and freebies I would be getting. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, until recently. I have never seen gays marching up to a local mosque demanding to be married. I have never seen gays demanding a Rabbi marry them. I do see a hate filled christian movement. It is against the church's beliefs, leave the church alone in your quest for equality. The gay community has every right to a civil union. Your beef is with the tax codes not the church. It is not a republican or democratic issue or a faith based issue, it is a state and government issue that needs to be addressed. The government should in fact terminate all tax preferences for any couple, eliminate all social security benefits to those who have not contributed and put an end to the social welfare that has crippled this nation. I am all for it.

Nobody is attempting to force the churches to bless gay marriages, although there are plenty of denominations that will do it. We seek equality under the law, not in the eyes of (insert deity or deities here).

Every reply written here is about money, not the vows of marriage and the meaning of the commitment.

Yes, because the legal institution of marriage is a binding legal contract enumerating legal rights. That's it.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, until recently.

Wrong. Polygamous and same-sex marriage have been staples of certain cultures throughout history.

I have never seen gays marching up to a local mosque demanding to be married. I have never seen gays demanding a Rabbi marry them.

Yes, because legal marriage is different from religious matrimony.

It is against the church's beliefs, leave the church alone in your quest for equality.

Current marriage laws do not mandate that every church must marry every couple who walks in its doors, thus your point is meaningless. Further, a number of Christian churches already perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Think before you type.

The gay community has every right to a civil union.

And to the legal institution of marriage, insofar as it exists.

Jack- Marriage between gays and polygamists has always been around for centuries? Sexual preference has been, but certainly not marriage as you state. The earliest legal marriage definition has been since 2003, I believe in Belgium but I could be mistaken. Are you actually stating that the gay civil rights movement has not embarked on changing religious matrimony? Yes, a fair number of non-catholic churches have married same sex couples, they have every right to do so, to follow their own beliefs and scripture. My point remains, it is in fact a government issue, to remove all tax benefits for all couples regardless of sexual preference. To abolish the social security system to those who have not contributed, to re-organize the tax code, and stop social entitlements. The we all will have the equality you are looking for.

AJ,

At last, common ground! (The gay community has every right to a civil union) But I think you miss at least two points many on this site are trying to make.

First, “Your beef is with the tax codes not the church”, no they’re just pointing out some of the inequities inflected by denying the legal, (notice not HOLLY), recognition of a LOVING union between gay couples. Sure your suggestion that we change all the laws is one way of making all unions equal in the eyes of the government but that’s a bit draconian don’t you think? Much better to just allow all unions of consenting adults equal standing in law, whatever those laws are.

Second, “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, until recently”, well NO not really. Defining Marriage as you do, (and here I’m paraphrasing please correct me if I’m wrong), as “The Loving Union Between One Man and One Woman” is relatively recent in terms of human history and even at that mostly prevalent in modern day societies with cultures steeped in the One God religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Many cultures have allowed gay marriages,(for just one example Google Two-Spirit for one from Native American traditions). When it comes to the One God traditions multiple unions are well recorded, (one man, one thousand woman, King Solomon), and finally marriage has a much longer history of being used seal contracts than for romantic love. Rather than loving unions between equals women were used as chattel, the “Signatures on the dotted line” that bound Kingdoms or families together. Variations of arranged marriage are very common to this day.

Not trying to change your views, just thinking out loud, (vertualy), about your 67.9 post

Every reply written here is about money, not the vows of marriage and the meaning of the commitment.

Only if you didn't read mine. Did you miss the part about the right to sponsor one's partner for immigration, or the right not to have to testify against them in a trial? Or do you somehow interpret those to refer to money as well?

I'm fairly lucky in that both me and my partner live here in this country. We may not be able to marry, but at least we can be together. A friend of mine has a partner from Germany, and is facing the decision of having to move to Germany if they want to stay together, because the US will not allow him to sponsor his partner for immigration while Germany will. He's currently planning to move in a few years, as soon as he can save enough money to finance the move and support himself while looking for work in a new country. In the meantime, he's taking courses in the language. And theirs is not an isolated case.

All of your remaining arguments conflate religious marriage with civil marriage. But the debate is not about religious marriage. It's about civil marriage. You know, that legal thing you have done by a justice of the peace? "By the power vested in me by the state of <fill in the blank>"? That's what makes marriage a state and government based issue that needs to be addressed.

Do people making these religious arguments even realize that atheists marry?

AJ:

Try looking a bit further back in history for legal gay marriages. There have been quite a few for you to choose from:

Two Roman emperors (Nero and Elagabalus) were known to have married men, and the practice was popular enough among the common folk that the later emperors Constantius and Constans had to issue a law banning it after the adoption of Christianity by the Empire. This law is found in the Codex Theodosianus: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment"

Additionally, there were the "Berdache" marriages of Native American cultures. This is a practice that Lewis and Clark themselves wrote about:

Rather than treat gay people as social outcasts, many cultures integrated men and women with transsexual natures into their societies. When French Jesuit missionaries found men among the Iroquois who dressed and acted as women, they called them berdache, incorrectly equating them with male prostitutes. Many scholars now prefer the term "two-spirit." American Indian languages had a variety of terms -- winkte (Lakota), nadleeh (Navajo), hemanah (Cheyenne), kwid-(Tewa), tainna wa'ippe (Shoshone), dubuds (Paiute) and lhamana (Zuni) to identify "a person who has both male and female spirits within," notes Lakota scholar Beatrice Medicine.

Anthropologists such as Elsie Parsons long ago observed that two-spirited men often married other men. Even earlier, William Clark told the first editor of the Lewis and Clark journals that Hidatsa boys who showed "girlish inclinations" were raised as women and married men.

[History News Network]

Where monogamy—-just one spouse—is the norm, there are nevertheless examples of marriage between two people of the same biological sex: two men or two women. This is the case in many Native American societies that recognize a third gender, the berdache, who is anatomically male but spiritually neither male nor female. A berdache may live with a man, fulfilling the role of wife.

In societies where descent is traced through the males of the family, keeping the lineage going is more important than restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Among the Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest, a man may marry the male heir of a tribal chief as a means of inheriting certain privileges from his father-in-law.

Similarly, a Nuer father in Sudan who has only daughters may ask one of them to adopt the social role of a man and take a bride. The female “husband” then selects a male mating partner for the wife. Any children born to the wife refer to the “husband” as father and become heirs of the paternal grandfather.

[Marriage ‘American Style’ Not the Only Way to Go. Category: News from The Berkeley Daily Planet - Friday March 12, 2004]

I am not trying to make you guys crazy, I am once again, referring to marriage as a government mandate for entitlements. The governments, parliments, and tribes of all the above referenced did not have to ensure legacy payments to such unions at the expense of others. I strongly believe that you may have a same-sex, triad, bi-sexual relationship in the privacy of your own setting. I believe civil unions should in fact be honored. I do not believe that our already taxed system could possibly afford the burden of all the new relationships moving forward. I do not believe it is draconian, it is fiscally responsible to abolish all entitlements in this new society for the sake of equality.

AJ:

Your entitlement argument applies to civil marriage of all forms, not merely gay marriage. The fact that you choose to make it in threads concerning specifically gay marriage tends to indicate that you don't really have a problem with the entitlements stemming from heterosexual marriage and that you have simply attempted to use it as convenient leverage against gay marriage.

Jarandhel-You may want to check post #67.9 and #67.12 and #67.16...I have stated in no uncertain terms that ALL unions, regardless of sexual preference, should no longer benefit from government entitlements. It is not financially sustainable. Unless your still under the impression that 95% of the (taxpaying) population will be receiving a tax cut.

Every reply written here is about money,

That's not true AJ. Two items were specifically referenced by others which you conveniently leave out of your "money" point.

1) Immigration rights for the person you want to be with/partner

2) Testifying against your partner in court

Neither of those things has to do with money.

AJ:

You've stated that, but you have also stated arguments geared specifically against gay marriage, such as the idea that the gay civil rights movement has "embarked on changing religious matrimony". Your statements regarding removing government entitlements from marriage seem to camouflage your real argument.

Otherwise, again, you would have no purpose in commenting on threads specifically concerning gay marriage, much less trying to convince us that homosexual couples do not want civil rights but only government entitlements and that they already have "a legal remedy for all gay couples" without the entitlements granted through marriage. And you would certainly have no purpose in claiming that gay marriage has not existed for centuries, or that the previous cultures in which legal gay marriage existed did not have to provide entitlements to such unions. These arguments are rather clearly aimed against gay marriage in particular, rather than the general stance against all civil marriage you claim.

I believe most readers can see through such thin camouflage.

Gre&jeff-So we want to have gay marriage so when one partner commits a crime the other does not have to testify in court? I would have no problem abolishing that law either, on the basis of it's foolishness. Immigration rights? This is America, there is no enforced immigration policy. Gay marriage under the legal definition, has not been around for centuries under the same circumstances American gays are calling for. I would like the entire system changed to fit the needs of gay lifestyles. It is not camouflage, it is a clear understanding that our nation does not have the ability to possibly fund the entitlements.

Wow, aj. You're kinda going off the deep end there.

Husbands and wives do not have to testify against one another in court, and the things they share with one another are privileged communication much like the communications between a lawyer and client. It's been that way for a long, long, long time. A husband or wife can choose to testify against their spouse, they just cannot be forced to testify against them.

As far as immigration goes, if I have a partner who is from another country, and I want to bring them into the US, I can't do it if we're the same sex. I can't sponsor them or anything. They might be able to get into the country by themselves as students, tourists, permanent residents, whatever., but heterosexual couples can sponsor each other to bring them into the country as permanent residents and eventually citizens.

Nobody wants special treatment, just equal treatment. The idea that somehow these things are "unaffordable" with same-sex marriage, but "affordable" with heterosexual marriage is laughable.

KatieAB-A lot of laws have been around for a long,long, long time. For instance, marriage between a man and a woman. I agree in equal treatment, I have never stated that only heterosexual couples should be afforded entitlements. We have entered a new phase of society and it is not affordable to have entitlements for ALL, therefore, be pro-active before the system is completely bankrupt and end the entitlement programs. If we lived in a smaller country we would not have the financial burden. Australia for instance is financially planning for gay entitlement programs, they are not as progressive with civil unions,adoption or marriage, but there working on it. America has an already flawed system that can not even be sustained in it's current form. I'm not off the deep end, I am just armed with a calculator.

So which of these entitlements cost so much money? How does government recognition of rights translate into increased cost to government?

Aj,

Am I correct in thinking that your using this question about "would allowing gay marriage hurt small business?" as a place to get some of your frustrations over deficient spending out? That you see this as "just one more straw, maybe even the last one"? If so, might be worth another seed for another good conversation. One where people would concentrate on that one part of this.

KatieAb-Social Security would be the largest of all entitlements. Joint tax return filings, Medicaid would be increased to include new family members, Welfare would be increased in the same fashion, etc. It is a perfect opportunity for our government to change tax codes and entitlement programs now that we have reached this junction in a formal change of society.

TheHermit-small business would have to absorb the entitlements through tax increases, how else do you recommend funding it? Most small business owners file taxes independently, claiming business profits as income. So yes, more entitlements, more taxes.

All gay individuals who work enough are eligible for social security anyway. Gay families are already covered under medicare and medicaid when necessary. I think you're just using the issue of gay marriage to push a semi-related, but otherwise separate issue.

I like social security, medicare, medicaid, and many of the other services our governments provide. I'm not interested in removing them, but I am interested in having them apply to all relationships, not just the heterosexual ones.

KatieAB-Seriously, if the CBO has already stated that social security will be bankrupt in 2017 how could you possibly fund additional recipients? Medicare is also slated for bankruptcy. When a heterosexual partner passes away, social security pays the benefits to the spouse. If a heterosexual couple divorces, and one does not re-marry, and one passes away the original wife/husband collects social security. Everyone likes free stuff, free services and free entitlements, it is simply not sustainable. I don't want to give up any benefits under my current married status, but I certainly would to benefit my children's future and your children's future. It has no viability for funding, so end the entitlements for all. The government has a fiscal responsibility to future generations.

There are no additional recipients. While benefits may be paid to a surviving spouse, they'd be paid to the person should they survive anyway, regardless of whether or not they are married. The only possibility is that benefits are paid for longer than they normally would be paid in the event of a person's death.

As I said earlier, I'm fine with entitlements. They just need to be distributed equally. Problems with the system necessitate improving the system, not abolishing it. Costs are what they are, and removing all entitlements whatsoever just places the burden of social services on individuals, having to pay their own complete costs, rather than with the costs distributed throughout society.

Katie-Every "new" marriage defines a potential recipient, as well as all adopted children. I could be wrong, but I do not agree with you that social security currently pays for the surviving (unmarried) partners. Perhaps individuals should now have their income distributed equally as you suggest, to piggyback all gay unions on top of the already flawed system afforded to heterosexual couples will not work. It is not feasible under the current system. We may just have to agree to disagree on entitlement programs, under our current economic meltdown I can not possibly see a way to fund it. It is refreshing to have an actual difference of opinion without being attacked for your views.

Each individual is already eligible for social security should they meet the minimum employment requirements. Your argument is the same as Steele's, that gay Americans are not part of the system, do not participate in the system, and are a new, potential burden on the system. Gay Americans are already part of the system. We work, we pay taxes, we collect on social security where eligible, we pay into social security.

Marriage does not define any "potential recipients". Children are recipients of federal benefits if something happens to their biological or adoptive parents. Since gay parents are the legal parents or guardians of their children, the same rules apply, whether or not they're married.

The problem with your premise is that you seem to have no idea who is eligible for what benefits, and how those benefits are determined. It has no bearing whatsoever on your marital status or sexual orientation, it's based on your work history. Spouses may be eligible for their benefits in addition to their deceased partner's benefits, but even then, that's the same number of checks, the same amount of money, as would have been spent should both individuals be alive in their retirement.

Katie- you are mistaken,under the current system for social security a spouse does not have to work one day in their lifetime to receive payments from the other gainfully employed spouse. You may want to research spousal benefits under the current system. I have a clear idea of benefits, and exactly how they are determined, which is why I say it can not be sustained. Your premise that everyone works is also wrong. Your premise that everyone pays taxes is also wrong. That is why it is a flawed system.

If you have never worked a day in your life, you are not eligible for social security benefits. You must work to gain a certain number of "credits", representative of the amount of money you've put into the system. If you don't meet the minimum, you aren't eligible for benefits. The lowest requirements are for disability benefits, but the majority of people are not disabled but collect retirement benefits.

That said, if you are married, and are not eligible for benefits, but your eligible partner dies, you will be entitled to their social security benefits upon your reaching retirement age. Those benefits are less than what would have been paid to your spouse, and you still do not receive your own benefits in addition to the benefits of your spouse. If you are eligible and your spouse dies, you may receive both sets of benefits. In either case, there are no greater number of recipients or checks paid than there would be if everyone was treated individually, with the exception of payments being continued longer in the case of a married person dying and the payments going toward their spouse.

I did not say that everyone paid taxes, I said that everyone who is eligible for social security retirement benefits must pay into the system and meets certain requirements. My partner does not work anymore, and she is not eligible for social security according to the documentation she receives from the Social Security Administration.

AJ,

While I agree that a lot of the social institutions that you’ve mentioned could use some changes I just don’t think that segregating Gay Americans from the institutions of legal marriage is the place to make your stand on that point. As Katie has pointed out they are already contributing to the economy as much as the rest of us and percentage wise they represent such a small part of the population that I just can’t see how the change of status from single to married could have any real adverse impact. Especially when compared to the wrong being righted.

If it really is the impact on the economy that worries you then you might take some comfort from this Forbes article.

The Gay-Marriage Windfall: $16.8 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/05/cx_al_0405gaymarriage.html

The census estimated that 594,000 homosexual couples were living together in 2000, so we figure that 92% of them, roughly 546,000 couples, would wed if they could. They might not do it right away, but over time they would swell the ranks of would-be brides and grooms.

We estimate that if the laws were changed, gay couples currently living together would collectively spend $16.8 billion to get hitched.

TheHermit- In no uncertain terms do I want to segregate Gay Americans. I must say I was quite surprised to see your post with the amount of gay couples, as defined by the census. It seems rather a very small percentage and I would have never anticipated such a low number. $16.8 Billion dollars in immediate "stimulus" would indeed be great for our economy but it is short term, very similar to our current stimulus package, with no consideration to the future of legacy "entitlement" cost. Our system simply needs to be changed for the influx of new tax and entitlement recipients. Small businesses will indeed be impacted through health insurance mandates and tax increases, as well as future litigation. My point still remains if both medicare and social security are already slated for bankruptcy by 2017, what will be the outcome by adding additional benefactors to the already defunct system?

Morning AJ,

If your point is that our current programs have promised more to our citizens than can be delivered without some changes then I can agree with that and we, as voting Americans, can start kicking around the types of changes needed. However that’s a different discussion than the point Steele was making that Gay Americans are the problem. As for your point, (but it is short term, very similar to our current stimulus package), don’t forget that Gay Americans will still be borne, grow up, fall in love and want to get married just like the rest of us. So yes the dollars might peak when the laws change, (and change they will), but wont stop coming in.

TheHermit was my father, it’s just Hermit to my friends. :-)

aj, you completely ignored my post about how social security works, and then continue on parroting your misinformation. Please, go to ssa.gov and read.

The system is not bankrupt in 2017, the system will be paying out more money than it takes in as of 2017. The system can continue on without bankruptcy until 2041 without any modifications, and it's highly unlikely that no modifications will be made.

AJ-

There have been a lot of comments about your post. But the part I have a problem with is where you say, " just like heterosexual couples who choose not to marry." Homosexuals don't get to choose not to get married. They are being told they can't marry. And to suggest that they are in it only for the money is absurd! They didn't ask for all these financial benefits they asked for Marriage. It is the government that is offering them these benefits in lieu of marriage. By your definition my husband and I could have chosen not to marry and still have most of the same rights. So again by your definition my husband and I married for the money. Which is not the case at all. We chose to get married because it is the ultimate symbol of unity and commitment to one another. Is it so hard to believe that a same sex couple could want that too? That they could love each other so much that they want to celebrate that union with the same enthusiasm as a straight couple?

Just because they are happy with this new law it doesn't mean that this is what they wanted all along. It is just another step forward. One step closer to true equality. And that is something worth celebrating.

My point still remains if both medicare and social security are already slated for bankruptcy by 2017, what will be the outcome by adding additional benefactors to the already defunct system?

I feel very surprised to see people still regard this argument as a valid economic concern in the face of such blatant "no more room at the inn" statements against gay marriage. Particularly in light of the fact that non-monetary benefits of marriage remain ignored. Look at the rhetoric used:

Gay marriage under the legal definition, has not been around for centuries under the same circumstances American gays are calling for. I would like the entire system changed to fit the needs of gay lifestyles.

This statement tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the United States must legally redefine marriage before we can dare grant it to homosexuals. That civil marriage as we know it does not fit the needs of "gay lifestyles". This argument does not target entitlement benefits for all couples. It specifically targets the idea of extending existing entitlement benefits to gay couples.