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

CNSNews.com ^ | May 12, 2004 | Susan Jones

[nickcarraway]

(CNSNews.com) - A University of California study says a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in California would be good for the state's bottom line.

The study estimates the state of California stands to gain up to $25-million in additional sales tax revenue each year if AB 1967 becomes law.

"This study makes it clear that equal protection is not only the right thing to do morally, but also fiscally," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, a homosexual advocacy group.

"By passing this bill, the legislature could avoid onerous proposed budget cuts in education and health programs. The Assembly Appropriations Committee cannot in good conscience let this bill die when it could do enormous good for families and for the economy," Kors said in a press release.

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

But conservative opponents say the "radical" bill would undermine the very foundation of society and violate the will of California voters, who passed an initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman four years ago.

The bill calling for California to issue "gender-neutral" marriage licenses has prompted heated debate, and a close vote is expected on Wednesday, when the Assembly Appropriations Committee takes up the measure. (The bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 20.)

The economic analysis of AB 1967 was conducted by The Williams Project, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law, in collaboration with the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.

According to one of the study's authors, the $25-million windfall to the state would come from increases in sales tax revenues from tourism and from the additional dollars spent on same-sex wedding ceremonies.

In addition, the study said, if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, fewer people would qualify for state benefit programs such as Medi-Cal and CalWorks - a significant savings to the state, the study said.

"These savings more than offset a decrease in income tax revenues," said Brad Sears, co-author of the study and executive director of the Williams Project.

According to Sears, "our analysis makes it clear that providing California families with equal rights is fiscally responsible. Making same-sex partners accountable to each other not only strengthens families; it has a positive impact on the state budget."

Sears said the study was timed for release before Wednesday's key vote on AB 1967.

A leading critic of the bill, the Campaign for California Families, is urging like-minded Californians to tell their elected representatives they want AB 1967 to be defeated.

Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, has called the bill "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral" because it "turns marriage upside down and utterly rejects the vote of the people to protect marriage for a man and a woman."

The Campaign for California Families also is organizing a protest to protect marriage on May 18 in downtown Los Angeles. The protest will take place outside the office Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, the head Democrat in the State Assembly.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Texas Eagle]

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.

[Psycho_Bunny]

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

[Lexinom]

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.

[ModelBreaker]

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

[jra]

Something D-O-O Economics (not Voodoo)

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

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

[Lexinom]

The Outline of the West Coast Independence of the America

From some nut.

[Lizavetta]

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?

[anonsquared]

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.

[Lexinom]

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.

[sheik yerbouty]

yes.

[MN_Mike]

Money for nothing

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Uncle Kermie]

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.

[television is just wrong]

Geez is that for real?

[John Will]

They can have New England as well.

[Prime Choice]

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

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