Tuesday, July 05, 2005
The irrationally feared “marriage equality for all… yes, it could mean millions of dollars to the state tourism and hospitality economy as civil unions and marriage it has in Vermont and Massachusetts.
San Francisco found that treating all married couples (whether long-term committed as gay or straight) equally, saved them millions in health care costs when a higher level of input into the insurance system meant fewer uninsured (and thus a substantial drop in use of Emergengy Room and Urgent Care visits.)
As for the costs of anti-gay laws (the major moneymaker for Focus on the Family and CWA), not only did Colorado lose millions of dollars in a tourism boycott over their Amendment 2, but the state spent even more millions in legal costs taking the when the unconstitutional measure all the way to the US Supreme Court, where they lost.
Creating a second class of citizen as fearful paranoid state Constitutional Amendment will do automatically sets up South Dakota for a legal battle it cannot afford. If the SD Family Policy Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family are willing to pay the states legal bills for this fight, then yes, lets “ban marriage.” But let them be pay for what their movement costs, not the taxpayers.
San Francisco found that treating all married couples (whether long-term committed as gay or straight) equally, saved them millions in health care costs when a higher level of input into the insurance system meant fewer uninsured (and thus a substantial drop in use of Emergengy Room and Urgent Care visits.)
As for the costs of anti-gay laws (the major moneymaker for Focus on the Family and CWA), not only did Colorado lose millions of dollars in a tourism boycott over their Amendment 2, but the state spent even more millions in legal costs taking the when the unconstitutional measure all the way to the US Supreme Court, where they lost.
Creating a second class of citizen as fearful paranoid state Constitutional Amendment will do automatically sets up South Dakota for a legal battle it cannot afford. If the SD Family Policy Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family are willing to pay the states legal bills for this fight, then yes, lets “ban marriage.” But let them be pay for what their movement costs, not the taxpayers.
Comments:
Post a Comment
