Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Against whose financial interest is it?

On Maddow's show, she mentioned that gay marriage is expected to pump a little over $100 million into NYC's economy, in part because NY State has no residency requirement for getting married. To me, it seems like it's in a lot of people's financial interests.

That's nice, Maddow is biased so I take her opinion and counter with another opinionated source that is contrary, Fox News (LOL); the cost it places on healthcare to cover domestic partners and blah blah.

I'm sure somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer it better.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

That's nice, Maddow is biased so I take her opinion and counter with another opinionated source that is contrary, Fox News (LOL); the cost it places on healthcare to cover domestic partners and blah blah.

I'm sure somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer it better.

Well, she had to get those numbers from somewhere.

This is from the New York Daily News--hardly a hotbed of elite liberalism:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...ge-gay-couples

Their projection--$184 million--is a little higher than I've heard.

My question remains--in whose "best financial interest" is it to not legalize gay marriage? The cost it would take to cover same-sex partners isn't that much more than it would be now, considering most gay households consist of dual-income earners (both of whom typically carry their own insurance).

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Well, she had to get those numbers from somewhere.

This is from the New York Daily News--hardly a hotbed of elite liberalism:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...ge-gay-couples

Their projection--$184 million--is a little higher than I've heard.

My question remains--in whose "best financial interest" is it to not legalize gay marriage? The cost it would take to cover same-sex partners isn't that much more than it would be now, considering most gay households consist of dual-income earners (both of whom typically carry their own insurance).

That's the key in your article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...e=domesticNews

We really don't know, but the key in this article is this.

"Parties on both sides of the issue frequently invoke the hypothetical economic impact of same-sex marriage, Leonard pointed out, so the influx of real-world data from New York could go a long way toward changing those hypotheticals into concrete facts."

Like I said, somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer the question better than I can.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

We really don't know, but the key in this article is this.

Like I said, somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer the question better than I can.

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties." Since you asserted that, I'm simply asking who you mean by these "certain parties." That's all. It seems like a slightly more involved question than you're able to answer, and that's okay.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties."

Who would those parties be? All I can think of are insurance companies...

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

This made me laugh and frown at the same time. lol

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Who would those parties be? All I can think of are insurance companies...

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

I'm trying to figure out who these parties would be!

Have you had to deal with any gay "divorces"? I put "divorce" in quotes because I know gay marriage is not legal, or recognized, in OK--but informal unions, especially when kids are involved, dissolve all the time.

I'm not even sure if insurance companies would suffer, since most gay households are dual-income and, it stands to reason, are insured individually. We didn't hear anything from the insurance lobby in NYS so they might not even be impacted negatively.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Have you had to deal with any gay "divorces"? I put "divorce" in quotes because I know gay marriage is not legal, or recognized, in OK--but informal unions, especially when kids are involved, dissolve all the time.

Yes, in a limited capacity. I was hired to help dissolve (by agreement) a lesbian household in Stillwater, OK. It basically never went anywhere though. In Oklahoma, were I hired on to one of these as a contested action, I'd treat it as a partnership and apply the same law to dissolving the "marriage" as I would to the dissolution of a for-profit partnership. On paper at least, it seems to be a viable theory.

I'm not even sure if insurance companies would suffer, since most gay households are dual-income and, it stands to reason, are insured individually. We didn't hear anything from the insurance lobby in NYS so they might not even be impacted negatively.

That's the only non-religious reason I could cook up. Like you, I'm without much of an answer as to who is harmed here. But the religious folks seem willing to spend massive amounts of money on this fight.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties." Since you asserted that, I'm simply asking who you mean by these "certain parties." That's all. It seems like a slightly more involved question than you're able to answer, and that's okay.

**Yawn**

Exactly, I'm glad you finally get it. I'm a certain believer that nothing is voted on in Congress and is a hot button issue unless it affects somebody's wallet.


That's why we've had almost 40 years and 4 republican administrations of Roe v Wade and it has yet to be overturned.

All these companies change their insurance policies because of Universal Healthcare, but now that a lot of the provisions have stalled companies aren't reinstating the "Cadillac" insurance.

Gay Marriage the same, yes there will be a big boost in revenue for cash strapped states and what not, but somebody is looking at this from their private interest and is not liking it at all. Or sometimes, the fight is more lucrative than the victory.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

**Yawn**

Exactly, I'm glad you finally get it. I'm a certain believer that nothing is voted on in Congress and is a hot button issue unless it affects somebody's wallet.

Yeah, I finally got it. You're full of shit and I called you out on it.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Yeah, I finally got it. You're full of shit and I called you out on it.

Congratulations, you win the award.

Take your victory lap.

You called me out. I've been exposed!!!!!!!!!


Arrrgghhhh!!!!!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Gay Marriage the same, yes there will be a big boost in revenue for cash strapped states and what not, but somebody is looking at this from their private interest and is not liking it at all. Or sometimes, the fight is more lucrative than the victory.

I could totally be buying into foolishness, but I feel like I remember a reputable survey that estimated about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. I assume an even smaller number of these people are going to be getting married.

How significant could the financial repercussions or windfall really even be? And, why is it a concern?

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I could totally be buying into foolishness, but I feel like I remember a reputable survey that estimated about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. I assume an even smaller number of these people are going to be getting married.

How significant could the financial repercussions or windfall really even be? And, why is it a concern?

I don't know, but if people are tracking it, it must be a reason why to either support or dispute a position.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I could totally be buying into foolishness, but I feel like I remember a reputable survey that estimated about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. I assume an even smaller number of these people are going to be getting married.

Statistics range anywhere from 4% to 11% of the population. I don't know of any conclusive research though, as self-reporting is awkward here.

How significant could the financial repercussions or windfall really even be? And, why is it a concern?

If we assume your (worst-case) 4% figure, there are 19 million people in New York, so you're looking at about a million LBGT there. What's the average outlay on a wedding? Google claims something like $25k, and that doesn't include gifts, hotel rooms, liquor sales, flights in/out, etc. It adds up rapidly.

Now consider that you'll have other couples coming in from Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. ... $200MM seems easily reachable, especially if the actual number is closer to 11%.