Kudos! Gay Marriage needs to be recognized! Thank you for pointing out the economic benefits of gay nuptuals - since we already know the moral benefits.

Guess what, heteros. WA state taxpayers have forked over $20,000+ dollars just to me, all due to Marriage Inequality. Instead of a legal divorce after 8 years, I ended up homeless and penniless, and YOU are paying for it. Makes perfect economic sense, no?

"What sort of future is there in a gay community which does not produce offspring, and in a sense has no real stake in the future of a community?"

You know, perhaps the offspring issue is more due to the fact that it's more difficult for gay or lesbian prospective parents to get access to infertility services than, say, an impotent heterosexual man or a heterosexual woman with fertility issues. They're not biologically capable of reproducing on their own either (and make up an equal percentage of the country as gay and lesbian individuals); are they disregarded as people with no stake in the future who won't produce offspring? No! They adopt, they seek treatments, etc. And as it becomes easier and more acceptable to do so, gay couples seek the same thing. That argument belongs in the dustbin.

It's remarkable that the one commenter has the gall to cite WWII veterans as an excuse to discriminate. I for one know that my grandfather served in WWII so that his children and their children could live in freedom, and so that others could not tell us how to live our lives. Telling me I can't get married and making me a second class citizen is the anthesis of everything he fought for.

Tho the commenter with the questions:
1) How dare you complain that gay people have no stake in the community as an argument for the community give us no stake? We are trying to be part of the world around us, to participate in the institution of marriage, to live lives of normality which everyone wants, and you're rejecting us. Not the other way around.
2) It can't be much of a backlash if the people who disagree with us just up and leave. If they think that America needs second class citizens, good riddance to them.
3) Whether gay people can marry or not doesn't much alter housing prices, since gay people exist and form couples and buy houses together anyway.
4) The prevalence of a politically liberal citizenry historically leads to sane tax policy and an excellent business climate. Look up economic trends over the last 30 years for example: every time we have a republican president the national debt skyrockets and business goes into a recession. Every time we have a democratic president, we pay down the national debt and business turns around to head into a boom. Don't believe me? Look it up.
5) America's cities are too expensive for young people in general, and it's not hundreds of millions of gay people driving up prices, it's supply and demand. Blaming gay people is a simple but stupid answer to the problem. Want it to be cheaper to live in a city? Build more housing.
6) Your morals are your problem, stop shoving them down my throat.

As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.

Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1100 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1100 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Massachusetts unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.

At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.

Marriage in America brings millions to our economy. Gay marriage would bring that figure into the billions. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

To say that homosexuals do not procreate is a fallacy. There are many gay men who utilize the services of egg donors and surrogates as well as their or their partner's sperm to have children. There are also many lesbian couples who have children by utilizing the services of friends, brothers, or anonymous sperm donors to have children. For an example, read the article "Daddy's Little Helper" in the February edition of W magazine.