Then the conclusion is obvious: for economic reasons, Chapman opposes same-sex domestic partnerships and favors same-sex marriage. Right, Bert?

Not necessarily. If you read beyond the summary page, you might encounter:

Providing health-care benefits to employees’ live-in partners also tends to normalize gay and lesbian relationships, which in turn leads to an increase in gay sex.19 Neither result is good for employees or employers. Even in socieites where gay sex is broadly viewed as socially acceptable and is legally protected — i.e., the Netherlands, Canada and Australia — gay sex is associated with deadly diseases such as HIV, AIDS, anal cancer, other sexually transmitted diseases, increased mental illness, and an eight to 20-year shorter life expectancy.20 In view of the medical dangers associated with gay sex, as well as the risk of a shortened life-span, encouraging employees in their same-sex relationships is neither compassionate nor responsible.

[Webmaster note: heterosexual sex is associated with HIV, cervical cancer, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases. That's one reason conservatives claim marriage is so necessary for harnessing and taming the sex drive and promoting monogamy. The same reasoning applies to gay marriage, too. And if there is greater mental illness associated with gays -- those studies are always suspect -- the answer would be to remove the cause of such alleged illness: the stigmatization gays go through. Finally, it's ludicrous to talk about the impact of gay marriage on reduced life expectancies of 8 to 20 years when that span exceeds the time period in which gay marriage has been legal. It's simply illogical. Again, every conservative argument for the importance of marriage as an institution works for gay marriage, too, and every problem you associate with gay sex simply makes an even stronger case for marriage equality.]

Well, you can read my reply to him on his blog. If you ever intend on going back to it!