Business leaders save a few bucks backing gay marriage

Business leaders save a few bucks backing gay marriage

Now I know why all those Mass. business leaders are backing gay marriage by telling the Legislature to strangle the democratic process in its crib by not allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment.

The Boston Herald revealed on Saturday that the Boston Globe has told gay employees that same-sex partner benefits will be cut off for unmarried couples. Since marriage is legal, they say, they should take advantage of it.

Now it all makes sense. In liberal Massachusetts businesses have had to extend “domestic partner” benefits to same-sex partners of employees in the name of “fairness.” Thus since unmarried gays got benefits, it wouldn’t be long before unmarried heterosexuals were demanding equal treatment. And we all know how big of a cut of personnel expenses that benefits are.

So as long as gay marriage is legal, businesses—including such liberal leading lights as the Globe, subsidiary of the New York Times—can save a few bucks. After all, gays aren’t exactly sprinting for the altars. According to a Zenit article on the phenomenon worldwide, it’s been a trickle:

South of the border, in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage was introduced on May 17, 2004. That year, 5,994 same-sex couples married. Recent official data indicate that an additional 1,347 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts last year, for a total of 7,341 such unions between May 2004 and December 2005.

According to the study, there are not reliable estimates of the homosexual population in Massachusetts. Assuming the proportion is the same as the national average (2.3% of men and 1.3% of women), and assuming all the marriages are between local residents, 16.7% of homosexuals entered into same-sex marriages.

According to the US Census Bureau, 57 percent of American adults, 15 and over, are married. In Massachusetts alone, 51.7 are married. (See “Marital Status: 2000” report [PDF]. The same report said marriage rates in the Northeast are the lowest in the country.)

So businesses are pretty safe now. By saying only married gays can have benefits, they’re pretty much assured of cutting down on the rising cost of employee benefits. Selfish self-interest at work. Glad to see they’re motivated by principle.

Technorati Tags:, , , ,

bk_keywords:marriage, protection of marriage.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
7 comments
  • Greed is good, so who cares about right and wrong?

    Who cares about the promotion and indoctrination of an unhealthy lifestyle?

    And who cares if same-sex “marriage” is actually legal in Massachusetts? 

    If any one of those corporate lawyers could explain to how under Massachusetts law, same-sex marriage is legal, please do so.  How about anyone from Mitt Romney’s office?  How about from Mitt Romney’s campaign?  How about from Catholicsfor Mitt blog?  Oh no, sorry, they took down the Catholics for Mitt blog-site (referenced on an earlier post, here) when it became clear that people are starting to realize that our greedy Governor, Mitt, might have violated the law.  Oops.  They have another catholicsformitt site up now that no longer shows the 46 comment discussion on the subject?  Hmmm why would they do that?  I thought Mitt was for free speech?

    If corporations are greedy, and government officials are power hungry, where does that leave the rest of us catholicsnotformitt and evangelicalsnotformitt? 

    Does anyone care anymore about right and wrong?

  • So, part of the reasoning behind my comment on the original post was correct.  I’ll reprint:

    Remember, none of the people care about anything but MONEY.

  • In looking at the names listed in the Globe(7/10/06) ad of the “Business and Civic Leaders FOR EQUALITY”, the following names stand out:  Geri Denterlein
            Mimi La Camera
            Colette Phillips
            Micho Spring
    Denterlein,Phillips and Spring are also listed as members of the Catholic Charities Board of Trustees.(http://www.ccab/org/trustees.htm). And also listed on the Catholic Charities Board of Trustees is Paul A. La Camera. which raises the question: Is Mimi La Camera related to Paul?
    Who was responsible for appointing these people to the Catholic Charities Board of Trustees? Is there any wonder why Catholic Charities has been
    pushing for adoption to same-sex practitioners and for trying to get Catholics to accept same-sex sex as good,so they should join PFLAG, as happened when Catholic Charities formed the Companions program? This deception on the part of leaders of Catholic Charities has been going on for a long time. Who is responsible and when will it stop?

  • The website I gave for Catholic Charities is the one given on my list downloaded on 2/18/06, but I just tried it from my above comment and it didn’t come up. Sorry!

  • I made a mistake. it should be :
      http//www.ccab.org/trustees.htm
    Hopefully that will work!!

  • I just discovered that those names are no longer listed on the CC Board of Trustees so I wonder if they are the ones who resigned when CC said they would not adopt babies to same-sex partners any more. Perhaps someone can explain this a lot better than I can!!

Archives

Categories

Categories