One Step Backwards — November 10th, 2006
On Tuesday, November 7th, 2006, Wisconsin voters took to the voting booths and decided whether or not to amend Wisconsin’s constitution to “protect” the institution of marriage. While the rednecks and the religious right turned it into a vote on gay marriage, the referendum was, in fact, tied to a rather broad-sweeping piece of legislation that not only serves to forbid gay marriage, but will also eliminate anything resembling marriage—common-law marriages and civil unions, for example. The problem—for the illiterate rednecks anyway—is that common-law marriage and civil unions between men and women will now be illegal too. Oops. Now Chester can’t get informally hitched to his cousin, Susie.
The problem for everyone else is that “protecting” marriage is a ruse for hateful and shortsighted legislation that disgraces our state, turns away talented workers, and hurts our economy. Allowing common-law marriages and civil unions—between any two loving adults—benefits everyone. First, allowing people to be happy in the state of Wisconsin will attract more people to the state of Wisconsin. Among these people will doubtless be laborers, artists, entrepreneurs, and parents that will enrich the culture of our state and contribute tremendously to Wisconsin’s productivity and advancement. By banning anything other than a formal marriage between one man and one woman, we hemorrhage a stream of vitality from this state that cannot be easily regained. Recent studies from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles substantiate these claims on productivity and talent; they’re not just anecdotal (The Advocate, 2006). Wisconsin small business leaders agree (Small Business Times, 2006).
Beyond increases in talent and productivity, allowing some creative license in the definition of marriage also creates jobs and moves money through our economy. Allowing same sex unions would create a surge of business for reception halls, hotels, florists, formal wear stores, bridal boutiques, limousine services, and the like. Same sex marriages would create first-year revenues in the wedding industry of $2 Billion (The Advocate, 2006). As Christine Halverson mentions in her treatise on this issue, these dollar figures don’t even include the sale of wedding gifts (Halverson, 2004). She coyly mentions as well that with marriage, comes divorce, itself a multi-billion dollar industry annually (Halverson, 2004). By any measure, the sustainable economic increase is significant and would create many jobs and small businesses.
For those still angered by the idea of gay marriage, consider this: married gay couples would get punished through taxation. Recognizing gay marriages would immediately deposit the “marriage penalty tax” on these couples. In an article on the issue, James Alm, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Leslie Whittington consider the benefit to federal taxes alone at $0.3 Billion to $1.3 Billion annually (Halverson, 2004). Doubtless, this tremendous surge in income tax could be used to fund revenue-starved programs or pay down the national debt.
Further, the things voters were obviously most afraid of—namely gay marriage and gay civil union—can’t hurt Wisconsin or the country. If you don’t fancy the idea of two men or two women getting married, then don’t marry someone of the same gender. It’s that simple. If you’re afraid that the institution of faith and its ideas of marriage will be eroded, look to your religious leaders and fellow parishioners for solidarity within your faith. Don’t turn to the state constitution. The laws of our land forbid the blending of religion and law anyway; the state is not going to force your church to wed two men.
In fact, the only legitimate argument against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. It is hard to argue with this. Evolution did not equip Homo Sapiens of the same gender with the tools necessary to procreate. Therefore, perpetuating the human species would be difficult through gay unions. Of course, monogamy is equally unnatural, and without the protections of modern medicine and technology, it would likewise fail to perpetuate the species. Therefore, the unnatural argument fails in cross-examination. Even in a religious sense, the unnatural argument fails. Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley recently stated that people seeking gay marriage rights were acting on an “exaggerated sense of entitlement” (Phillips, 2006). Entitlement to do what? Contradict nature? Do turning loaves into fishes or water into wine seem natural, Cardinal?
The simple truth is that mindless, exclusionary, and hateful legislation that “protects” marriage hurts everyone and benefits no one. If people want to be happy and proclaim their love for one another—regardless of how “natural” that love is—who are we as a society to preclude them from doing so? Let everyone be happy. Natural or not, happy people make for better societies and better economies.
~ topher
References:
The Advocate. (2006). Study: same-sex marriage good for the economy. The Advocate. October 12, 2006.
Halverson, C. (2004). Gay marriage makes cents. Economics, about.com. Retrieved November 10, 2006 from http://www.about.com
Phillips, F. (2006). Leaders oppose bid to ban gay marriage. The Boston Globe. July 6, 2006.
Small Business Times. (2006). Tech Council leaders say gay marriage ban would harm state’s economy. Small Business Times. October 27, 2006.