Insurance may be the reason behind the push to outlaw gay marriage.

[yardwork]

The top three contributors to the effort to make gay marriage illegal in California are all involved in the insurance business. The Mormon Church owns insurance companies. The Knights of Columbus is the insurance arm of the Catholic Church. And the founder of the Templeton Foundation made his money in insurance, I believe.

One of the major reasons people get married is to provide health insurance coverage to their spouses. I know that this is a real issue in the lives of many gay couples. Here in my state, there is no possibility of gay marriage and the state does not provide benefits to same-sex partners. More and more people in the United States are losing health insurance, as small businesses are unable to afford premiums. Only large corporations can afford to provide access to group health insurance for their employers, because the large corporations receive significant tax rebates for this from the federal government.

Insurance companies do not want to have to cover more people. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, many new spouses will suddenly become eligible for insurance benefits that they are currently denied. Insurance companies know this. They employ sophisticated risk managers and actuaries to measure their likely profits and losses down to the penny. Having to cover thousands or even millions of new spouses would mean a hit to their profits. Add to this the fear of having to cover spouses with HIV - horrors to the insurance company! Homophobia plays a part in this, of course. For instance, lesbians are the segment of the population least likely to contract HIV, but most probably the "fear of the gay" is playing a role in the insurance companies' projection of risk.

Ironically, the effort to pass Proposition 8 in Florida, as well as similar campaigns in other states, actually increases the risk of the U.S. population spreading HIV. By continuing to demonize gay people and encourage homophobia through these hateful campaigns, the promoters of hate drive gay people underground, putting more people unknowingly at risk from sexual partners living on the down low.

If the United States had universal health coverage, I suspect that the well-funded drives to outlaw gay marriage would disappear. We would still have problems with homophobia, but they would not be encouraged by efforts such as "Yes on Prop 8."

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. Thanks for the money-trail aspect to the question

And there ALWAYS is one.

[Karenina]

3. To $pot the lie$

Follow the money It'$ AXIOMATIC!

[yardwork]

4. I'm not certain that this is the reason, but I've been trying to figure out why

those three specific organizations - Church of LDS, Knights of Columbus, and Templeton Foundation - took it upon themselves to spend tens of millions of dollars to take away a right that had already been granted to gay people by the state of California.

I mean, I understand anti-gay bigotry. I live with it every day. But this seems so much above and beyond. The "Yes on Prop 8" campaign was very very well organized and funded. And it wasn't meant as a wedge issue to get out the Republican base. The Republicans had to know that they had absolutely no chance of winning California for McCain. So why such heavy funding in California?

The only common denominator I see in the top three funders is insurance. And that makes a lot of sense because marriage is the only avenue to insurance coverage for a lot of people.

My partner said today that it had to be a zero sum game in somebody's mind and suddenly it all clicked. I might be wrong. That's why I'm posting this here. I hope to get responses that prove or disprove.

[xchrom]

2. only ubderscoring the point that anti-gay bigotry crosses all spctrums. nt

[RB TexLa]

5. Insurance is already sold with gender pricing, if two men are married you can no more give them a

discount on the price then you could charge two women more if they were married.

[yardwork]

8. But spouses are provided with the option to buy into many employer health plans.

Let's say you work for the state of North Carolina and your spouse is self-employed. The state of North Carolina gives you the option to include your spouse on your health insurance, which is underwritten by the state with the assistance of federal tax subsidies.

Now suppose that you and your partner are two gay men and aren't allowed to get married. Your partner is out of luck. Can't buy into the employer's group plan, because the employer doesn't offer same-sex benefits (not legal in NC and many other states).

I believe that the Church of LDS, Knights of Columbus, and Templeton Foundation may have done some bean counting and decided that allowing gay marriages would end up costing their insurance arms some profits. I believe that they decided to stop the movement cold by pouring money into Proposition 8.

[RB TexLa]

20. Those costs are already factored into the cost. It's gender priced.

[yardwork]

22. I understand that. What I'm saying is that the option doesn't even exist if you aren't married.

[RB TexLa]

24. Right but it's actually a money maker for the insurance companies

Less people without access to group insurance purchase it.

[yardwork]

27. Hm. Maybe my theory is wrong, then. But what about HIV?

Could the simple fear of increasing the numbers of insured people with HIV be enough to motivate these three groups to spend tens of millions outlawing gay marriage in a single state? Of course that is irrational - lots of gay men don't have HIV, lesbians are the demographic least likely to contract it, and the fasted growing demographic with HIV is heterosexual women - but maybe the homophobia overcame rational thinking?

I'm trying to figure out why three particular organizations - the Church of LDS, Knights of Columbus, and Templeton Foundation - saw fit to invest tens of millions of dollars in wiping out a civil right that had already been given to gay people by the state of California. It seems like a pointless waste of money all for the sake of hatred - I'm looking for a reasonable explanation.

There may not be a reasonable explanation, I realize. It may really come down to hatred and homophobia.

[RB TexLa]

40. The risk of HIV is factored into and spread over insurance customers just like every other risk

I don't know about the others but KoC sells life insurance, like all other life insurance it's gender priced and the mortality tables have HIV and everything else factored in.

[sarge43]

6. I don't understand why the insurance companies are fretting

Isn't it an axiom that same sex marriages will destroy 'traditional' marriage? So, for every same sex marriage at least one straight couple will go through a bitter, hate filled divorce and everything should even out.

[yardwork]

9. LOL!

[drm604]

7. I think you've hit on something.

We need to get people like Maddow and Olberman talking about this.

[yardwork]

10. I don't know if I'm right or not. It's just an idea. I dream these things up.

I'm hoping others will prove/disprove.

[drm604]

12. I'm trying to think of a way this could be proven or disproven.

It seems like it would require a whistle blower to reveal these organizations true motives (if you are correct). That said, it wouldn't hurt to have this possibility raised in the media, or at least brought to the attention of the GLBT community.

[yardwork]

18. Unfortunately, there is no "GLBT community." LOL! I'm one lesbian.

I guess I could send this to Lambda Legal, which is one of the groups fighting for civil rights for gay people.

[drm604]

26. Well, I'm straight so I wouldn't know,

but Lambda Legal sounds like a good place to start. Surely there are some other organizations out there.

[yardwork]

29. Yes, there are various organizations working for human rights, but no single "GLBT community."

[drm604]

33. Well, obviously there's no single "GLBT community".

I stated that badly. I meant the various organizations that must be out there that fight for the rights of sexual minorities.

One thing you could do is post your idea on DU's GLBT forum.

[yardwork]

35. Thanks. I'll cross-post it there.

[drm604]

13. Here's a thought.

Do any of those organizations provide health insurance in California? If they do then that lends more credibility to your hypothesis. If they don't then it makes your idea less likely.

[yardwork]

14. Well, I think that they must. There are lots of Mormons and Catholics in California.

[juno jones]

28. Sutter Health -on the list of Mormon CEO biz's.

Health care/HMO/ insurance.

[yardwork]

HMOs are big in California.

[drm604]

30. Are you saying that the LDS and Catholic churches sell insurance to their members?

I wasn't aware of that. If the insurance is for their members then I don't think that they would be insuring many same sex couples.

[yardwork]

31. LOL! There are many, many gay Mormons and gay Catholics.

The Church of LDS and Catholic Church will not mention this, but their actuaries are well aware of the fact. Furthermore, I believe that they now sell insurance beyond their membership. They began as member-only insurance companies, but branched out. Just as non-Mormons stay at Marriott Hotels.

[drm604]

36. I never assumed that there aren't gay Mormons and Catholics.

How could there not be? But the churches would never recognize their marriages and I would think that they would be reluctant to apply to the church for coverage since admitting the marriage could result in their being thrown out of the church.

[yardwork]

37. Good point. But, as I said, my theory falls apart anyway unless the orgs insure lots of non-members

I'm getting a list of ideas to research, anyway.

I hope that people keep the feedback coming. As I said, I just dream these things up.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. The Catholics won't throw someone out for being gay

The Mormons are another story.

Most Catholics I know are in support of gay marriage, including some priests that I know. There's a big difference between the higher-ups in the Church and the average priest/parishoner.

[sutz12]

53. Olbermann did a Special Comment on Prop 8 tonite...

Towards the end of it, he was visibly emotional just talking about it and the inherent meanness involved in denying people basic human rights. Perhaps we haven't heard the last of this from him.

Prop 8 is a travesty.

[ellius101]

11. I'm going with Tom Harmann's theory

While the insurance theory does have some merit I think it goes way way beyond that. Hatmanns theory is making more and more sense to me...By aligning with the religious right on the sanctity of marriage issue, the mormon church is trying to legitimize itself in the eyes of the right. They're pushing Romney for 2012 and what better way to get the religious right on board! These guys are money hungry but theyre also power hungry and I think their ultimate goal is to reach for the Presidency.
Anyone see Fox news this morning? Never saw it myself but I did just see a Fox replay on Youtube, where they interviwed a couple Repugs congressmen and with anti-Gay initiatives in FLA, AZ and CA pretty much being the only victory that these guys had, they are tasting the blood of Gays and not only are they going to push forward with their anti-gay marriage agenda, it looks like moving to the top of their list. Its looking like the "sanctity of marriage" is set to become, or should I say remain, the hottest political issue for now....

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. And beyond that, the main reason the Mormons want Mittens as president.

While many fundie churches believe that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, the Mormons take it one step further. They believe that a Mormon will be President of the United States when JC returns.

[yardwork]

16. That also makes sense but doesn't explain the Knights of Columbus and Templeton involvement.

I mean, why those three specific organizations? I know they're all homophobic to one degree or another but why just those three?

[ellius101]

32. Yard...I'm not sure about the other two

I just know the mormons have big ambitions. And sanctuty of marriage aligns them with the religious right nutballs who are trying to maintain control of the Repug party.

[yardwork]

34. That might be the main reason, then. I had read that the Church of LDS is rapidly growing.

They are positioning themselves as the only "American" religion and they want to become the dominant religion in the United States. In this respect they are similar to the fundamentalist Dominionists who seek to take over the U.S. government, media, entertainment, and everything else and reform it in their idea of Biblical terms - an American Taliban.

I see your point about the Mormons seeking cred to align themselves with the fundies to get support for Romney. That would be worth $70 million to them, easily.

[Mari333]

39. they live in a dream world, then...

I heard Jame Dobson in RW radio talking about the money the Mormons gave to push Prop8..but in the same sentence while praising their money, he made reference to their theological differences ..the Mormons will always be considered a 'cult' by evangelicals like Dobson, and will never be legitimized in their eyes.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. It is disgusting to me that for so many people health coverage depends upon their relationship

I'm a single person. I'm in a committed relationship but with no interest in placing myself in a bizarre and anachonistic institution wherein my partner and I essentially own each other. Don't flame me - marriage is for some people, just not for me. Yet if one of us were self-employed or in a job with no health insurance benefits offered, I would feel compelled to enter into a contract with my partner, with all the obligations and threats that entails. To get health insurance. It's outrageously unfair. There are many, many people who, for whatever reason, are unable to attract a spouse. Or maybe like me they just don't desire one. So we are SOL unless we are independently wealthy or have a generous employer. Single childless people qualify for practically no government aid, no matter how little they make.

[yardwork]

21. I agree completely. In countries with universal health care, fewer people marry.

Many people - gay and straight - feel as you do. The difference is that straight people have the option to marry, while most gay people in the United States do not because it's illegal where we live.

Universal health care is a human right, imo. If the United States provided it then lots of other human rights would become viable as well. And I suspect that Proposition 8 would never have been suggested in the first place.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. I apologize for overlooking that gay people don't even get to make the choice.

I think you're definitely on to something with the opposition to Prop 8. The business community is all about embracing gay rights when it enhances their bottom line, i.e. recruiting good employees or expanding their markets. But they'll turn around and pull the rug when it might cost them something.

[yardwork]

44. I didn't feel that you overlooked it, no offense taken at all!

I agree with you. So does my partner. She thinks that marriage is part of the heterosexist patriarchal paradigm and nothing but a legal contract involving property.

Unfortunately, the U.S. corporatists have us in a stranglehold over this by denying unmarried people so many rights.

[nichomachus]

19. I don't think that's the reason -- but there is an irony there

As long as they're getting the premiums, they don't care who they insure.

But the irony is that the Knights of Columbus began because Catholics were discriminated against by the insurance companies and couldn't get life insurance. The KofC began to battle the discrimination.

I don't know how the Mormons got into the business -- probably for much the same reason -- and probably also because, for a while anyway, they felt free to kill any non-Mormons who came to Utah. That would discourage insurance salesmen, I would think.

[yardwork]

23. LOL!

[Deja Q]

25. Until they are deemed 'high risk'. Anything from a surgery to a sneeze qualifies said risk.

(To clarify, I was speaking about people who pay for premiums. Profiling any particular portion of the populace had not crossed my mind. Sorry.)

[Jade Fox]

42. It's amazing how often these things boil down to money. nt

[Imagevision]

43. A man & woman pay for insurance so would a wman & a woman - I don't get it?

[yardwork]

45. RGBolen upthread says I'm wrong too.

I just have a feeling that this might have something to do with health insurance.

[bridgit]

46. I think you hit it within. It's not per se gay marriage so much as perceived high risk behaviors...

But I think it can be more eye-opening than even homophobia. I think it's as cold blooded as a seminar full of insurance agents watching a laser pointer track the industry's bottom-line through a matrix of districts, neighborhoods, social groupings, and behaviors shot onto to huge A/V screen. At the rate they're going that laser pointer will have scanned everyone. But I don't think it began nor will end with any one group. For insurance companies it's all about money.

Bringing reason to that process will benefit all of us.

[unblock]

47. i don't buy this argument. can't they adjust premiums to compensate?

and given that marriages are more stable than the alternative, doesn't marriage lower risk overall, something insurance companies usually prefer?

[Captain Hilts]

48. I've ALWAYS said this. It's why it's legal in Canada. It's about ... $$$$. nt

[GeorgeGist]

49. I think simple ignorance ...

is the reason that many marriages are outlawed by divorce.

[Orsino]

50. Not *the* reason.

Never forget the GOP's standard operating procedure: get a hate measure on the ballot to increase wingnut turn-out.

Yet the OP intrigues me. I could believe that insurance fears are also a factor.

[yardwork]

51. I'm mostly intrigued by their efforts in California, which was not a swing state.

[yardwork]

52. Any further thoughts on this? I'm still interested in pursuing this line of inquiry....