The way I see it, we can "preserve the sanctity of marriage" and call the bluff on budget issues -- and solve the legal problem -- by using another term (other than the M word) to mean the exact legal equivalent -- civil union I think already means something less, so another term is needed, but it would be a civil contract exactly the same for all legal purposes as marriage.

Then the sanctity of marriage has been preserved, but all the obvious societal good that comes from encouraging stable families, however constituted; protecting the rights of gays as to the whole range of "spousal" rights (I hope "spousal" is not a sanctity word), including inheritance, health insurance, right to direct medical care, etc.; and so forth, is served.  A rose by any other name, and all that.

Just a thought.

You are right about this being largely a matter of money.

On the "moral" side, Bush implied that gay people are "sinners".

I really don’t think it’s about the money.  The big money is in health insurance; there are a few other family benefits, like dental, vision and minimal life insurance, but the amounts of money are trivial compared to the cost of health insurance.  

Clearly, the proportion of gay married people in the workforce would be very small.  Only about 60% of heterosexual people over 18 are married.  Gays and lesbians probably constitute less than 10% of the population, and would probably marry at a lower rate than heterosexuals if no other reason that that it is not traditional.  This means less than 6% of the workforce would be affected.

Not every married couple take advantage of any family benefits.  If both are working for entities that provide health insurance, it’s usually much cheaper for each to get their health insurance from their own employer.  About 80% of employees are in situations in which health insurance is available as a benefit and over 70% of the population over 18 and under 65 is in the workforce and employed.  (Excluding those in the military or institutionalized, for whom I would think the matter is not an issue.)  

I think the percentages for gays and lesbians would be higher, but even at those rates more than 56% of the gays and lesbians in the workforce would be in a situation in which both had access to employer provided (not necessarily funded) health insurance.  In those circumstances, in the absence of children, usually neither would take advantage of family benefits.  Even if one did, almost never do both parties take advantage of family benefits.  What this means, I think, is that less than half of gay or lesbian partners would take advantage of family benefits solely on the grounds that they got their insurance from their own employer.  This reduces the percentage of the workforce that would potentially impact employer costs at less than 3%--probably a lot less.

Of those, most employers will require contributions to the cost of health insurance for spouses varying from a substantial portion to all.  This required contribution will discourage many, if not a majority to forgo the employer provided insurance for their partner; and thus reduce the percentage of the workforce affected to probably less than 1.5%.   Even if the employee nonetheless elects coverage for his or her partner; the cost to the employer will be reduced by the amount of the contribution.   Those employers who pay nothing towards the health insurance of partners will obviously not be affected by gay marriage at all.  

Spousal insurance typically costs less than $600 per month or about $3,500 per year. although these costs involve considerations of children and pregnancy, which are essentially irrelevant to gay and lesbian partners.  

Thus the cost to a typical company that employees, say, 10,000 people with annual sales of $5 billion, paying about half the spousal health insurance cost would be about 1.5% x 10,000 x $3,500 x ½ = $262,500 per year.  Out of $5 billion this is not a significant amount; it’s might break the petty cash budget, but not by much.  

Also, there is a benefit to companies in providing family benefits; they don’t do this for heterosexuals for purely altruistic reasons.  Enhanced employee loyalty, satisfaction, productivity, reliability and longevity; and better community and other relations.  If an employee is distracted at work worrying about paying his or her spouse’s medical bills and securing their medical care, productivity will suffer.  Employee under financial pressure are more likely to steal, and evince other anti-social behaviour.  On the other hand, the good feeling and loyalty engendered by providing access to health insurance—effectively quality heath care—for an impaired spouse, could be very great and long lasting.

I don’t think it’s about money.  I think it’s about a moral position.  In Bush’s case, I don’t even think it’s about the politics.  He didn’t have to come out so strongly and so uncompromisingly; his base is secure.    He really believes this stuff, which, by the way, I regard as pretty medieval, kind of dumb, and really intolerant.

But it doesn’t help to make up and ascribe silly motives to your enemy.  One is better off understanding where he’s coming from, even if you don’t like it.

"Once you extend benefits to one person and their non-married partner"

How would extending benefits to two gay people who are married be doing this?

I, too, so want Dean to get the Democratic nomination.  The entertainment factor would be legendary.

The left doesn't have to work at making Bush look intolerant. He's doing a fine job of it on his own.  The left didn't put those words in his mouth.

Maybe the government should get out of the Marriage game as it has in school pray. Your believe should guide what a marriage should be  (Catholic, Jewish, mother goddress). Everyone would have the right under law to civil partnership.

...except for the fact you are inaccurate.

http://www.lcr.org/

to accept homosexuals as they are and not outcasts, it was at its zenith and there was no way to go but down.  So gays and lesbians are not necessary the cause of that decline.