Same-Sex 'Marriage' Called A Fiscal Boon for California

1 posted on 05/12/2004 8:58:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: nickcarraway

2 posted on 05/12/2004 9:01:31 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: nickcarraway

The bill, AB 1967 -- The Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act -- would "end marriage discrimination against lesbian and gay couples in California," homosexual activists say.

There is no discrimination. Two heterosexual women cannot marry each other nor can two heterosexual men.

3 posted on 05/12/2004 9:01:31 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)

To: nickcarraway

Did they factor in the companies that will leave the state as more and more of these insane agenda-driven laws are passed?

4 posted on 05/12/2004 9:05:30 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny

To: nickcarraway

This is an example of why we LEFT California.

All the hard-working family values people should leave the state, and let the baby-killers, earth worshippers, and homosexuals have it. It, along with the cities of Portland and Seattle, should then secede from the union and form the People's Republic of West America. They would be much happier, and so would real Americans.

5 posted on 05/12/2004 9:05:45 PM PDT by Lexinom

To: nickcarraway

So too is the huge pornography business in the Valley. Doesn't make it right.

6 posted on 05/12/2004 9:07:02 PM PDT by ModelBreaker

To: nickcarraway

Something D-O-O Economics (not Voodoo)

7 posted on 05/12/2004 9:07:07 PM PDT by jra

To: nickcarraway

Tell the fags to stay away. The morally sound segment of society will more than make up for their lost "contribution".

8 posted on 05/12/2004 9:08:14 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)

To: Lexinom; nickcarraway

9 posted on 05/12/2004 9:10:05 PM PDT by Lexinom

To: nickcarraway

the $25-million windfall to the state would come from increases in sales tax revenues from tourism

Are they saying that gay marriages in California would actually bring tourism dollars?

Are they insane?

10 posted on 05/12/2004 9:10:57 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Savage is right - extreme liberalism is a mental disorder.)

To: nickcarraway

Why is it that homosexuals decided that NOW they want to get married AFTER President Bush worked hard to get the marriage tax penalty repealed?

I keep seeing on the news these same sex couples claiming they have been in a committed relationship for 20 to 30 years saying, "It's been like we've been married the entire time." Gee whiz, I wonder if any of them were sending in those extra taxes to the IRS that they obviously owed? I think the IRS should start the audits now and not forget to heap on the penalties and interest.

11 posted on 05/12/2004 9:11:08 PM PDT by anonsquared (this space for rent)

To: ModelBreaker

Doesn't matter to them. They don't believe in moral absolutes (i.e. God), therefore it's silly to their way of thinking to speak of "right" and "wrong". Anything goes.

12 posted on 05/12/2004 9:11:35 PM PDT by Lexinom

14 posted on 05/12/2004 9:16:08 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty

To: nickcarraway

15 posted on 05/12/2004 9:18:16 PM PDT by MN_Mike (In Pelosi, Kerry and the Blow Fish (Kennedy) We Mis-Trust)

To: Flying Circus

16 posted on 05/12/2004 9:25:39 PM PDT by nickcarraway

There is no discrimation for an entirely different reason - no law of any State prohibits homosexuals from marrying. None, nada, zip. Not one law on any books in this Great Land limits marriage to heterosexuals. None, nada, zip. Our laws limit generally limit marriage to "one man and one woman" without regard to the participants sexuality or sexual preferences. A gay man or lesbian woman may marry, but it must be to someone of the opposite sex.

It is incorrect to say the "gay marriage" is illegal. "Same sex marriage" is illegal, not "gay marriage."

Some argue that this is tantamount to targeting homosexuals because, they say, why would a gay man marry a woman? The answer is that marriage is fundamentally about two things that cannot be separated - the relationship between the married and the children that come from marriage. As to the children, many far wiser than us had the wisdom to understand that men and women are inherently different, each bringing something different to the parenting of the child. A father can't replace a mother and a mother can't replace a father. Thus, FOR THE BENEFIT AND HEALTH OF THE CHILDREN, it is critical that marriage be reserved for one man and one woman. Every child ought to begin life with a mommy and a daddy and we ought not write into our laws something that allows from the deviation from that ideal.

Second, the idea that marriage laws were designed to be discriminatory against gays is silly on its face. Marriage laws, dating back to the Bible, were written, decades, centuries or millienia prior to the radical gay agenda. When California defined marriage as a woman and a man in 1859, was the legislature a group bigoted against homosexuals, trying to forestall a concerted effort to legalize same-sex marriage? No, it was cementing a basic relationship that the world had always known - marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.

17 posted on 05/12/2004 9:33:03 PM PDT by Uncle Kermie

Geez is that for real?

18 posted on 05/12/2004 10:01:10 PM PDT by television is just wrong

They can have New England as well.

19 posted on 05/12/2004 10:06:05 PM PDT by John Will

To: nickcarraway

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Called A Fiscal Boon for California

Next up: "Selling your soul has undeniable financial benefits," says Satan.

20 posted on 05/12/2004 10:06:28 PM PDT by Prime Choice (I'd question John Kerry's patriotism if I thought for a moment he had any...)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794