Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (30299)	2/18/2004 1:37:02 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793718

The likely end result of accepting same-sex marriages is to make it fiscally impossible for the federal government to recognize couples at all. The Fiscal Consequences of 'Gay' Marriage Opinion Journal's Political Diary With couples lining up in San Francisco, let's stop talking about "gay" marriage. There's no such thing: Public officials aren't inquiring into the sexual proclivities of people seeking marriage licenses. We're talking about same-sex marriage, which means any two people (perhaps even same-sex relatives since any genetic concern disappears) could make themselves eligible for the panoply of benefits that apply to married couples. The most important but least talked about: Social Security benefits. Right now, 17% of Social Security payments go to people whose sole claim is their membership in such couples. That's roughly $85 billion a year. Dependent spouses are entitled to payments of up to 50% of a retired worker's benefits. Widows and widowers are entitled to benefits after age 60, 65 or 67 (depending on circumstances). So are divorced widows and widowers in marriages that lasted ten years or more. Federal law currently prevents same-sex couples from collecting any such benefits, but court challenges would be instantaneous once new state laws authorizing such marriages take effect. A Gallup poll found that 65% of voters believe gay couples should have the same Social Security benefits as heterosexual married couples. But there's one big fly in the ointment: There's no way to restrict these benefits to the authentic "gay couples" that the Gallup majority has in mind. From the beginning, the faulty Massachusetts reasoning was a presumption that marriage has any formal relation to the sexual orientation of the partners involved. It doesn't: Conventional marriage affords no unique benefits to heterosexuals that aren't available to homosexuals. After all, anybody is entitled to marry a member of the opposite sex. By the same token, any state that authorizes same-sex marriage is doing just that -- it's not authorizing "gay" marriage. The likely end result of accepting same-sex marriages is to make it fiscally impossible for the federal government to recognize couples at all. --Holman W. Jenkins Jr.