The more ironic element of the present GOP's stance as typified Steele is that they calling on a segment of Americans to pay higher taxes they should have to pay per year due to the fact that segment is in a gay relationship. Conservative estimates of the number of extra taxes gays pay for their relationship is in the billions per year. You are right this is about equality and happiness, but on the most basic level, it's also about economic reality. How does these sort of economic realities hurt gays? For example, the idea that gays make more money in terms of income is also false as a result of discrimination related to being gay. How does this harm the relationships? I suppose that's the point. Make it as difficult as possible culturally, financially and through other means for gays to not be able to couple and have the social structures that conservatives claim support stability.

Despite the diary pointing out the obvious benefit of same-sex couples emigrating to MA, Mr. Steele seems to think that all those couples moving to MA will just pull the economy further down into the tank, what with whoever hires one of the two members being forced to subsidize his/her benefits as a married rather than single individual.

What would the marginal increase be on average - I say 2% to 5% (difference between employee contribution toward benefits for a married employee vs. benefits for a single employ), but that's just a guess.

I'm amazed how some Republicans worship unregulated free markets and their ability to solve any problem, right any economic ills, and overcome all obstacles... except a marginal tax increase (or benefit subsidy increase) of a few percentage points, which will drag the whole system into the toilet.

But as the diarist indicated, this isn't about the economy. This seems to me such a blatant violation of the Constitution's 'equal protection' provision that it would be laughable if it weren't so depressing.

Maybe we should let employers enslave some proportion of the populace. Constitution be damned, the reduced cost for employers would really give the economy a shot in the arm!

There are lovely reasons to favor gay marriage - I certainly do - but these "studies" of economic impact are a bit much; turns ou... people spend money on weddings! Who knew? It's cute... but as "economics"... I think it's a bit silly. And so is Steele.

I wish we could win these things based on rational, statistical ype proofs... but gay marriage, like other gay issues, really wins when it plays to emotions. Gay people should be able to marry not because he economy will skyrocket... but because they are loving, caring people whose lives and traditions fit comfortably with the rest of the world. It's too earnest, and too dry, to rely on stats.

You're right of course, but I think the point of the diary (and the comment I made above) was to highlight the absurdity of the argument Steele made in the first place.

It was one of those arguments hastily assembled that attempt to avoid arousing passions about a sensitive moral and cultural issue by attacking it from some pragmatic and relatively amoral angle.

It was worth demonstrating that this argument was crap so we could move on to tackling the issue and its sensitivity directly, minimizing the number of red herrings that will be thrown at supporters of same-sex marriage

That's my take anyway.