Gay marriage will be legal but for the right reasons ?

[DSM4Life]

From The Advocate May 20, 2008
Marrying With Money

When the people of springfield, the fictional hometown of The Simpsons, agreed to legalize same-sex marriage, it wasn’t out of a sense of justice or equality. Instead, they realized it was an easy way to make a quick buck. As Mayor Quimby quipped, “We shall legalize gay money -- I mean gay marriage.”

Most of us can sing the moral arguments for marriage equality in our sleep. We’ve talked about it over dinner with friends. We’ve discussed it at work. Though the argument for equality may have won over many of our straight allies, it’s the legislators and business leaders who still need convincing. And appealing to their heartstrings has yielded minimal returns at best.

It’s time to focus the argument on a place on which politicians and business leaders are all too often fixated -- our pocketbooks. We need to show definitively that marriage equality is sound economic policy.

Weddings and honeymoons represent a $120 billion industry that’s growing every year. The average wedding costs more than $19,000, big money for its host city or town. When San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February 2004, approximately 4,000 couples came calling. While 90% of the licenses went to California residents, nonresident couples came from 45 other states and eight countries. That’s thousands of new tourists overnight. And they all needed lodging and food and places to buy bouquets and boutonnieres and bags of rice. Small businesses were happy. Big businesses were happy. And at least some politicians were happy -- a healthy economy represents a surefire reelection platform.

Unfortunately, the courts put the brakes on San Francisco’s gay marriages. And even though the California state legislature has twice passed bills extending marriage to same-sex couples, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed both pieces of legislation. So the people (and businesses) of California must now wait for the state’s supreme court to decide the matter in ongoing lawsuits testing the constitutionality of the state’s heterosexist marriage laws.

But why wait for justice? Those who can afford it should travel to places that fully recognize our relationships and get married already!

It’s true that nonresident marriages will not be recognized in our home states (thank you, Defense of Marriage Act), but we can still send a powerful message. Just as we often use our dollars to support gay-friendly companies like Subaru and Disney, it’s time we wed with our wallets. Take your wedding banquets to Boston or Vancouver, Canada. Honeymoon in Amsterdam or Cape Town, South Africa. If you can afford a destination wedding, have your ceremony in the few places that fully recognize same-sex marriage -- Massachusetts, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, or Spain. By supporting communities that support us, we show other regions still hostile to marriage equality just how much they are missing out.

When Maryland’s supreme court ruled in September 2007 that same-sex couples were not guaranteed the right to marry in that state’s constitution, Maryland lost out on a $3.2 million annual windfall, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank dedicated to sexual orientation law and public policy. Think about it: All that money spent on same-sex cake toppers, bridesmaid dresses, formfitting tuxes, and DJs spinning Donna Summer would produce a $3.2 million net gain in tax revenue that could help Maryland build new schools, improve health care, and expand public transit.

Maryland isn’t alone. New York City comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. estimates his city’s economy would gain $142 million in the first three years after implementation of same-sex marriage legislation.

Let’s take our millions up the coast to Massachusetts or across the border to Canada. Because only when state legislatures realize how much money they’re losing will they help us gain the equality we’re seeking.

The benefits of marriage equality extend far beyond the big day. According to the Boston Business Journal, Massachusetts has seen an influx of highly skilled LGBT professionals since the state’s first same-sex marriages in 2004.

Yes, mayors and legislators should support marriage equality because it’s the right thing to do. But for those who aren’t there yet, we must expand our argument beyond what is right to what is lucrative. If we wed with our wallets now, it won’t be long before businesses and politicians wake up to the economic benefits of equality. Then the real America will start to agree with Mayor Quimby and recognize that now is the time to legalize gay money—I mean gay marriage.


http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid53575.asp

[gixxerboy1]

i agree not the right reasons. But if you lived there would you care? If they aloud you to marry would you care the reason they aloud it?

[inky-e]

Is that the same Mayor Quimby thats on the Simpsons?

[DSM4Life]

i agree not the right reasons. But if you lived there would you care? If they aloud you to marry would you care the reason they aloud it?

Nope but just wanted to mention this.

[Gators]

It should be determined by the vote of the citizens of the particular state, not by activist judges or Constitutional amendments.

[gixxerboy1]

Nope but just wanted to mention this.

It was worthing mentioning. I didnt mean it that way. I was just wondering if that would stop you from taking avantage of it if you lived there.

[Carlos_E]

It should be determined by the vote of the citizens of the particular state, not by activist judges or Constitutional amendments.

We already covered this.

Look at history. The majority said no to ending slavery. The majority said no to integration. The majority said no to interracial marriage. If our government and courts listened to "the people", where would we be as a society.

[shifty_git]

i agree not the right reasons. But if you lived there would you care? If they aloud you to marry would you care the reason they aloud it?

You agree cause you know im your wrong reason!

But i've told you... commitment isn't my thing!

Sorry gixxer!!!

[Carlos_E]

It was worthing mentioning. I didnt mean it that way. I was just wondering if that would stop you from taking avantage of it if you lived there.

I plan to marry but I'm going for the quick family route. Marry a guy who already has kids.

[gixxerboy1]

You agree cause you know im your wrong reason!

But i've told you... commitment isn't my thing!

Sorry gixxer!!!

Thats not what you told me this weekend.

You dont have to tell me what you think i want to hear to get my pants off. I'm easy

[Gators]

We already covered this.

I didn't see that, but someone has to vote on it, even if it's our elected officials, i can't ever sign on to judges legislating from the bench. Maybe it's where we differ, you (this isn't meant as an insult) have more of a socialist view: The Gov't knows better than we do, so let's by all means let them take full control. I think in the instances you mentioned it was voted on by our elected officials, not mandated by judges (although don't try and tell me the Yanks fought to end slavery)

[gixxerboy1]

I didn't see that, but someone has to vote on it, even if it's our elected officials, i can't ever sign on to judges legislating from the bench. Maybe it's where we differ, you (this isn't meant as an insult) have more of a socialist view: The Gov't knows better than we do, so let's by all means let them take full control. I think in the instances you mentioned it was voted on by our elected officials, not mandated by judges (although don't try and tell me the Yanks fought to end slavery)

Why does it have do be voted on. Isnt it more an interpitation of the current law? Which would be a judges job. There isnt a law banning gay marriages as far as i know.

[DSM4Life]

I plan to marry but I'm going for the quick family route. Marry a guy who already has kids.

So if a get a kid you will marry me ? ....would a dog be sufficient ?

[CheddaNips]

IMHO it should be legalized everywhere.

I was raised catholic and went to catholic school. Then again I have watched an uncle and 2 best childhood friends shed blood for our freedoms. Ia a patriot before a christian. I think that just because we are one nation under god dosent mean that everyone has to follow christian followings. Freedom of religion or the right to believe in no religion at all is our right as americans.

Seperation of church and state. Freedom should be free. An american is an american weather black, white yellow green gay lez bi. We all deserve the same rights.

Just my .02

[Tock]

It should be determined by the vote of the citizens of the particular state, not by activist judges or Constitutional amendments.

I don't see why. Nobody voted on whether or not heterosexuals could marry.

[G4R]

As a Christian, I must admit I don't condone Homosexuality, but at the same time, as a Christian, I believe that no one should have any more or any less rights as me or anyone else. Just because I don't agree with Gay marriage doesn't mean you shouldn't receive the same rights as me. If I have the right to marry a woman, you should have the right to marry a man regardless of my personal beliefs.

[Coop77]

It should be determined by the vote of the citizens of the particular state, not by activist judges or Constitutional amendments.

If the people want something that's forbidden in the constitution they first need to change the constitution. That's the activist judges' job, to determine what laws contradict the constitution. That's what happened in CA, and the people very well may change the constitution in Nov.

[dece870717]

What I don't understand is how government ever got involved in marriage because they have no business being involved in it. Marriage is a religious institution, religion came up with it, therefore they govern the rules of marriage.

[im83931]

What I don't understand is how government ever got involved in marriage because they have no business being involved in it. Marriage is a religious institution, religion came up with it, therefore they govern the rules of marriage.

Exactly! Marriage is a religious issue. The government has no business. If you guys want to pay the mairriage penalty too, then I dont have a problem with it.

Although I do think it will take the baby boomer generation dying off to make this be acceptable.

[dunhill225]

What I don't understand is how government ever got involved in marriage because they have no business being involved in it. Marriage is a religious institution, religion came up with it, therefore they govern the rules of marriage.

since when? marriage was not started as a religious institution. It was a simple exchange of goods. what would ever make you believe it started as a "religious" institution? ALL free people should have the same rights. why must heterosexual men be the only ones that lose all their shit?

[nameuser]

What I don't understand is how government ever got involved in marriage because they have no business being involved in it. Marriage is a religious institution, religion came up with it, therefore they govern the rules of marriage.

Perhaps it used to be, but marriage is no longer a religious institution.

If it was religious then non-Christians (or atheists) wouldn't be allowed to marry. People can get the legal rights from marriage but with a secular ceremony, I have heard of some atheists doing this.

Marriage is now a purely secular affair by default, but the couple may wish to make it religious if desired.

[TJM7275]

You should come up here to Vermont D, and Carlos. I think its legal for gays to be married here. I think if a gay couple wanna get married, more power to them. And if they wanna adopt a child, thats great to.
Off topic a little..... Yo D.... my friend gay mike might come down to the shore with us this June. You two should meet!!! That dude is a freakin riot, I'll tell you what. Tons of fun to party with.

[Carlos_E]

First-ever majority favors gay marriage

SACRAMENTO - For the first time ever, a statewide survey reports a majority of California voters favor gay marriage - a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people.

The Field Poll result, released today, shows the highest level of support in more than three decades of polling Californians on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage laws. The poll found 51 percent of registered voters favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, while 42 percent disapprove.

What's driving the dramatic shift upward toward support for inclusion? You guessed it:

Californians age 18-29 favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry by a greater than two to one margin (68% to 25%). Those in the 30-39 age group also approve of such marriages by 24 percentage points. However voters age 65 or older disapprove by a wide margin (55% to 36%).

The next generation doesn't simply approve of gay marriage; it does so by a massive majority. The poll suggests an Obama-Clinton-style generation gap - and an Obama candidacy this fall will surely increase the number of these demographics in the California voting this fall.

The key to the shift can be seen among independents. They fall much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans on this issue (61 percent of independents and 67 percent of Democrats back marriage equality, while 69 percent of Republicans oppose it). And the attempt to label this reformist measure as "far left" has not caught on.

Voters who describe themselves as middle-of-the-road in politics approve of allowing same-sex marriage 53% to 35%.

[wilson9d]

I think it should be legal