Posted on 12/26/2009 11:42:14 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Extending federal benefits to same-sex couples will cost taxpayers $898 million over the next nine years, according to an analysis of "domestic partnership" legislation released last by the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO said in its Dec. 17 report that the House version of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act -- H.R. 2517 -- would cost $596 million in direct spending and $302 million in discretionary spending through 2019.
The independent nonpartisan agency found that "providing additional health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program" -- for active and retired gay federal workers with spouses -- "causes the largest increase in both mandatory and discretionary spending -- $590 million and $266 million, respectively."
The analysis notes, however, that enacting the legislation "would not have any direct impact on federal revenues."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
L M A O !!
Tell me how much our AIDS bill is for the year for these animals.
This will be the biggest boondoggle in the history of mankind.
Everybody can get married to someone or something and start collecting.
What about different sex couples?
From June 29, 2004:
..should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? Health care professionals are familiar with the medical challenges of homosexual men living the gay lifestyle. For you, the taxpayer, to be willing to pay government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions, you should consider what lifestyle your tax dollars will be supporting.....
In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. [14] Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons. [15]
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/PhrmGayMrg.htm
From July 7, 2007
... Of course, the promulgation of knowledge and data concerning the link between alternative sex and disease is hampered by the bullying tactics of the elite. Thus, only a few facts are known at all to some of the public (such as the results of a study in Scandinavia showing that men in same-sex marriages die 24 years earlier than their counterparts in the general population), and these facts aren’t mainstream, thanks to the media blackout on this issue and the muzzling of opponents under color of law. And that, in turn, is thanks to the activists.
...Note the remarkable parallels with the smoking craze: In both cases, the promoters of the respective dangerous habits had been or are withholding evidence that undoubtedly would have led people not to indulge or to quit. Today, public elementary and secondary schools are doing just that, and in addition, some are teaching, as part of “sex education,” methods for carrying out harmful sexual perversions...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/XGayVsHsx.htm
I guess my question is what is the likelihood of this passing?
Damn good question. No way I can see to tell from the article.
But I don’t see any way they can cover gay couples and not straight couples. For that matter, no logical reason not to cover polygamous couples.
Hillary already ILLEGALLY DOES THIS by extending married benefits to same sex couple in the State Department...but gee, won’t give them to couples who are together but not married. Just like the gays the opposite sex couples ought to get them but noooooo, just the homosexuals. More hatred of the institution of marriage and the liberals twisted world view forced down upon us at our own expense.
She was wise enough to see that they wouldn't be satisfied with just being accepted - that they wanted actual aproval and the right to force their perversions on everyone.
But militant homosexuals and their enablers accused her of hate and homophobia and destroyed her career.
Today, as homosexuals have more rights and government protections than normal people, she stands fully redeemed.
It’s interesting that these Federal boondoggles seem to be quoted at around $800M (or Billion), depending on the scope — as if to say it won’t reach the next threshold (Billion or Trillion) which we know WILL happen. Sort of like the old $9.99 sales trick...
You’re absolutely right about Bryant. She had the courage to tell the truth. Degenerate Leftists always try to destroy any public figure who tells the truth about their agenda.
...and 30 years later,the homo-nazis attempted the same thing with Miss California.
And as they say - "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Back in the day Anita Bryant was also a beautiful, talented and successful beauty queen. She was Miss Oklahoma 1959 and second runner-up to Miss America in 1959.....
She also was (and is) a devout Christian and an ardent advocate of traditional family values.
.
Think giving benefits is harmless? It will be like a small leak in a balloon. Even though the hole pierced is micrometers, the balloon still pops. Try maintaining DADT if this is passed, or maintaining the federal DOMA, or try denying adoption to homosexuals, or refuse to hire a radical homosexual or transvestite without severe penalties, no matter what your business or professed beliefs. An "in" like this, the federal approval of homosexuality, will breach the dam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.