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: Lane3 who wrote (94081)	1/7/2005 6:00:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

Finis? Well, in case you've been keeping track, I've never said that gays are "just as well off" without the ability to marry each other. Why would I? I've said all along that what's driving the movement for gay marriage is AIDS and automatic health insurance coverage for spouses. My guess is that the biggest losses, from an economic perspective, for gays, in addition to the loss of automatic health insurance coverage, are the loss of Social Security benefits, ERISA benefits, and other retirement benefits. It would be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis, given that for most gays, being a stay-at-home mom isn't part of the relationship. So, even though they don't get the benefits that society gives stay-at-home moms, they also don't have to give up the benefits that husbands give stay-at-home moms.