While Rhode Island is busy losing $8 million because their own LGBT residents leave the state to get married elsewhere, Iowa has raked in $13 million from LGBT couples who tie the knot in the Hawkeye State. No wonder Iowa’s GOPs support gay unions. Someone should tell Rick Perry.
sunonthehorizon
This is a problem that I see growing increasingly prevalent in society. It may be that it has always been this way. Maybe its just that only now I have begun noticing it. That we as a society base what should be moral arguments or arguments of principle on fiscal considerations. It increasingly frightens me how prevalent attempts to woo people involve arguments such as this. Marriage equality should not be based on economic considerations. To do so, only would grant the GLBT community a pyrrhic victory. Creating an equality that is only respected in so far that it’s financially advantageous, not on changing hearts and minds. In my opinion that is no victory at all, not one to which I’d revel in.
MikeE
@sunonthehorizon: You have to start somewhere. The enemies of marriage equality would have their followers believe that equality will lead to financial hardship for companies and the state, who would be (according to them) forced to cover spousal benefits.
So at some point, it is good to demonstrate that marriage equality can attract out-of-state workers and their spouses (spice? hey, if mouse becomes mice, why can’t spouse become spice?).
Having our enemies accept marriage equality purely because of its fiscal benefits is a stepping stone to actual societal equality. You start with the victories you can win. And you use the tools at your disposal to win them.
Steve
@sunonthehorizon: A win is a win. I don’t care how we get equality as long as we do.
Also @MikeE: it’s just spouses.
declanto
@sunonthehorizon: Don’t kid yourself, marriage is about property. It’s great to espouse the morality of equal rights, but historically marriage has only recently been about love. Fact of life: the pursuit of happiness includes economic security.
Riker
@sunonthehorizon: If we want to win, we need to present every single argument we have, not just cherry pick a few of what we think are the strongest. Different people respond better to different arguments.
For example, about a year ago my county legislature voted to privatize one of the county-run nursing homes. I was very much against turning it into a for-profit enterprise, and met with my legislator to tell him so. We had a discussion about it, and when he actually showed me the numbers how we couldn’t afford it, the bid offered for the home, and where the money would be otherwise spent, HE ended up convincing ME that I was in error.
Xmas Apparel
I’m glad that we all disagreed with sunonthehorizon’s alarmist reply. Since conservatives think strictly in financial terms, I interpret this chart as a reply TO THEM IN PARTICULAR, not a positive argument gay people share together. After all, we aren’t in this fight for the money.
Robert in NYC
There are some dumbass republicans who believe that legalizing same-sex civil marriage would be too costly in terms of gay married couple’s adding their partners to employee based health benefits etc. Yet they ignore the fact that more hetero couples are marrying and adding their partners to their health plans. If these asshats really think allowing gays to marry would cause too much of a burden on employers both private and government alike, then by their deduction, all future hetero marriages would have to be banned in the interests of fiscal conservancy.
slanty
There’s more to this than money. Only a superficial analysis of the problem could think it was about money. It’s about contributions to the country. Gay people have a lot to contribute, and when they find themselves pushed out of American life in one way or another because of who they are, everybody gets hurt. We should learn from stories like this that hatred of gay people by bisexuals or straight people is self-defeating.
sunonthehorizon
@Xmas Apparel: “alarmist” is a bit of a stretch on your part. I’m not screaming bloody murder in the streets, and you’re certainly welcome to disagree.
daveb
“No wonder Iowa’s GOPs support gay unions.”
Except the poll you link to shows that they don’t. The most popular choice amongst Iowa Republicans in that poll was to give “no legal recognition” to gay couples.