And this is just the Federal expenditures.

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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/extending-federal-benefits-sex-couples-cost-m-cbo-says/?test=latestnews

I forsee quite a few platonic marriages of convenience on the horizon.

Like the old Playboy cartoon featuring the College dude saying to the chesty Cheerleader, ...... "Let's get married on Friday ...... and have a real fun weekend ....... and then get divorced on Monday".


.

This year's legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., an openly gay lawmaker, and with 138 cosponsors, would allow for homosexual partners of federal employees to receive the same benefits as married spouses, which include health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries and travel and relocation benefits.

My question is, why is the federal government providing compensation for work-related injuries and relocation benefits to spouses now? To the federal employee I understand but not for spouses regardless of race.

And as I told Terry a few days ago, I have no problem with this bill even though I have no intention of using it whether it via a civil ceremony or if gay marriage is legalized.

I can't stand Rosie O’Donnell but she should be able to have the same conversation with her partner you have with yours and not fear the government forcing her partner to testify against her in a court of law.

The way I see it, the best way the government can save on health insurance is to reduce the size and scope of government. After all, if all of these homosexuals were to suddenly marry opposite sex partners, wouldn't the government still have to pay increased cost under the CBO estimate?

So what's to stop the fudge packers from marrying the carpet munchers for federal benefits reasons?

So what's to stop the fudge packers from marrying the carpet munchers for federal benefits reasons?

Absolutely nothing.

Queer marriages for the sole purposes of income tax deductions will work too.