Gay Marriage: It is economic

I would think a conservative would insist that gay couples be married. One of the most important thing that marriage does is to protect parties in areas of financial responsibility. Gay people are getting away with shunning their fiscal responsibility. These Republicans never made any sense to me.

Now, there is evidence that there is yet another economic implication of gay marriage, where it is legal.

Gay people may be exactly like everyone else demographically (or not) but gay couples who prefer marriage there seems to be a disproportionate share of people that any state would want to have more of around because they are extra skilled and quite useful, therefore, to the state’s economy. This effect seems to be real, and measurable, in Massachusetts.

The Boston Business Journal reports that the only state in the country to allow gays to marry is become ” a powerful lure for same-sex couples who want to live in a place where they can get married, gain legal rights and have access to spousal health benefits.”

For decades the state has seen a brain drain despite having some of the most prestigious universities in the nation.

From 2003 to 2005, the population actually fell to 6,429,137 from 6,438,510, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau obtained by the publican.

“Since the marriage law passed, we see a lot more (gay) professionals moving into the Boston area,” Henry Hoey, a member of the Greater Boston Business Council, a chamber of commerce for gay professionals told the Journal.

Hoey said that the organization’s membership has increased 5 percent to 1,100 members since last year. “The effects of this law are starting to take hold.”
[source]

But Massachusetts may not be the only state to reap these benefits of Liberalism. California is moving in on the action as well.

Same-sex marriage is at the top of the docket with the California Supreme Court resumes on Tuesday. If the court rules for gay and lesbian couples challenging the state California could be the second area in the US where same-sex marriage is legal.

The court has scheduled three hours for oral arguments. The justices then have 90 days to issue a ruling. That could mean a rush to marry in June, the traditional wedding month.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom’s actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state’s equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.
[source]

Comments

  1. #1 Joel
    March 4, 2008

    Here in Iowa, gay marriage is before the State Court also. There was a brief period, one morning, where same sex marriage was permitted in Iowa and one couple managed to get married.

    I’m not sure when it is going to go before the court, but in the meantime there is a bill in the state house for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. So far, the Democrats have been able to block the bill, but Republicans are trying hard to push it through.

    The Democrats want to see what the Iowa Supreme Court has to say about the law defining marriage as between a man and woman before they address a constitutional amendment.

  2. #2 jos76
    March 6, 2008

    It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage. They are essentially trying to convince people that mutually respectful relationships are not beneficial to the couple or the society around them. In addition, Democrats that favor civil unions over marriage rights are opening the door to straight couples entering into civil unions so that they can get the benefits alloted, without actually getting married. Civil unions, then , will actually lower the overall marriage rate. Who is to stop two straight “friends” from filing for a civil union in order for work-related benefits in a state. Legalizing gay marriage would raise the overall marriage rates and civil unions would lower it. This is perhaps the goal of both political parties. Civil unions means no access to Social Security, whereas marriage does give access.

    I’m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples tat tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse. Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.
    Jos76
    http://www.jos76.wordpress.com

Current ye@r *