Alabama State Sen. Del Marsh (R) sees yet another reason to oppose marriage equality: Giving same-sex couples equal rights, he says, is simply too expensive.
“You gotta look at the financial aspect of this as well,” Marsh told an Alabama radio host last week, in an interview flagged by Think Progress. “Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?”
Marsh, the President Pro Tempore of his chamber, added that he “wondered if the federal government has looked at the actual costs to the government when they look at an issue like this.”
35 comments
If married couples are so expensive, why not outlaw all marriage, instead of discriminating only against a small minority?
Either allow marriage for everyone or no one, but don't use a budget to justify your bigotry.
"“Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance. Where does it end?” "
Yeah, we should cure them so they marry someone of the right gender, and they will stay married until they retire and go on social security waitaminit . . .
So we should keep rights from people who deserve them just to save money? This must be that elusive “compassionate conservatism” I’ve heard about.
If you have no other arguments left, try to get the people to think with their wallets
Del is so right. First, only white people could get married. Then Other Races and costs started going up. Then different races wanted to marry each other! Now this business of same-gender marriage! OMG!
Look, Del, marriage is either an expression of love between two people, or it is an instrument of control over women. Your call.
That's an argument for abolishing any distinction in marital status with regard to Social Security and insurance, not for preventing marriage equality. You politicians created the Social Security system so it would favor marriage; if you don't like the consequences, deal with it.
Does the federal government look into the costs? The memo went out on the subject the day after the Supreme Court ruled.
“Let’s face it. If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance."
Oh, you mean like everyone else?
Fuck you, bigot.
Yeah, they might have to reprint marriage licenses, which might run into tens of dollars. Meanwhile we continue to award multi-billion dollar contracts to defense contractors.
Refusing to allow gay marriage because it saves money is like deleting all text files from a 10 TB hard drive in order to save space.
"those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance."
This is why I was against it when they were debating it in Canada. We never have seen the cost element estimated and our government employees are paid/benefitted better than Americas.
There's a cost to progress.
Expensive? Gay marriage IS already approved in many countries, and even in some states, isn't it? We haven't noticed that it's expensive. I'd even say that it's more expensive NOT to accept gay marriages. More marriages generate more tax revenue for all the wedding costs, and homemaking costs, and happy people who live with the one they love are, in general, healthier and more productive than non-happy people who are not allowed to live with the one they love.
You know what would save tons of money? Not buying tanks and airplanes to put straight into the scrap yard. Also, if a law is too expensive to apply to everyone then it should apply to nobody. Your "solution" is the same as funding the "War on drugs" only against black people. The law can't discriminate like that. Either allow both straight and gay marriage or no marriage at all.
The Anti-Gays are really grasping at straws as far as new "reasons" why Same-Sex marriage/LGBT-Rights shouldn't be a thing.
Sooooo....The "Bible Says" thing didn't work. The "Constitution" didn't work. "Animals don't do it" didn't work. "It's unnatural" doesn't work. Now they're coming up with some economic argument that makes absolutely no sense.
Give it up, Frums! We win, you lose! Just admit it; You hate LGBTs because you think it's gross & it usurps the traditional gender order and makes enforcing gender roles hard.
Allowing gays to marry would lead to more marriages.
More marriages mean more marriage licenses, as well as more of the expenses associated with weddings (photographers, bakers, caterers, venue bookings, etc.) In other words, there'd be an immediate boost to the economy.
The Church of England bishops & archbishops in the House of Lords dropped their opposition to the S-SM Bill in Parliament. It was all but rubber-stamped by MPs in the House of Commons a few years ago.
S-SM is legal here in the UK.
Romans 13:1-5, bitch.
You keep living in that river in Egypt, (The Man From) Del (Monte, He Say NO!).
You know what's even more expensive? Spending millions of tax dollars to have state attorney generals fight the losing battle that is keeping bans on same sex marriage. It's soon to be a reality, everybody knows it, yet several states still keep it tied up in court.
If you forced gays to marry those of the opposite sex I doubt that you'd care about the money flow, somehow. It's funny how that even when you try and show that you're not homophobic, that you're not bigoted, you end up exposing your prejudice once again.
Maybe you could claw the money back by removing tax exemptions from churches that '...participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office'.
If gay marriage is approved, I assume that those types of unions, those people would be entitled to Social Security benefits, insurance.
So they're giving you an unearned bonus, and you're pissed because same-sex marriage would take back away from you something you weren't entitled to in the first place?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.