Kalley Yanta debunks the tired meme that claims protecting marriage somehow harms the economy.
She argues: "This argument is internally inconsistent with other arguments gay-marriage backers advance. For example, they argue that more gay and lesbian couples are making their homes are making their home in Minnesota, so we should redefine marriage to accommodate them. Yet if true, that is happening when we already define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
She goes on to say: "The facts show that states with marriage protection amendments already in their state constitution are our top performing economic states."
She then cites four studies supporting her claims. It's a great summary!
Please take a moment to watch and share it this weekend:
15 Comments
Those pesky facts sure make things difficult for the opposition.
This article misconstrues the argument. No one is saying you can't be economically healthy and discriminate against gays and lesbians getting marriaged, but rather, you'd be even more economically healthy if you didn't.
Very True. And many straight couples do not want to be listed as Party A and Party B
There's no arguing with the facts laid out in that video. Kalley totally debunked that tired myth using irrefutable evidence, and within a minute's time.
How does a meme get tired, if no one's heard of it? I have never seen anyone claim that limiting marriage to only straight people harms a state's economy. Perhaps NOM has gotten this confused with UCLA's Williams Institute, which calculates the economic benefits of legalizing same-sex marriage.
yes Barb, those facts are pesky things and the states that have legalized marriage equality have the lowest rates of divorce! The highest rates are in the bible belt.
SW, my marriage license has Party A and Party B, so what? Damn you people need to grow up.
Barb, speaking of those pesky facts:
1 one in four women is abused by a straight male, one in five is raped.
2 up to 72 percent of abused children were abused by their heterosexual biological parent(s).
3 98 percent of child molesters are heterosexual men most of whom are married to women.
4 the planet's population stands at 7 billion. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging more procreation!
Dan,
Those were not facts. The fact is that self professed "homosexuals" are over forty times more likely to molest children; that 98% of all priests caught up in the Catholic church sexual abuse scandal are self identified "homosexuals."
What you offer up as "facts" are nothing more than thinly veiled excuses.
Take note, marriage supporters. Whenever specious claims from the opposition are proven wrong, they then begin diversionary tactics by throwing in completely unrelated statements. If they can't dazzle us with brilliance they'll attempt to baffle us with BS.
It was none other than Adolf Hitler himself who said if you repeat a lie long enough then people will eventually beleive it.
This big lie is the lie of how of how rejecting man/woman marriage benefits the economy.
MA pushed the phony marriage agenda and if their was a list of the worst performing states than MA would top all of the lists.
Want to wreck your economy then allow the activists to redefine marriage and your state economy will be wrecked.
Right, Barb.
Dan, How come you are posting negative statistics about male-female relations, e.g. abuse and rape, but no comparable statistics about homosexuals? There are comparisons available, so let's hear them from you, since you are so ready to cast stones. We grownups have been working on most of these problems our entire lives, so get off your moral high horse. Also, on procreation, the birth rate in the West is stagnate or declining, so procreation is needed just to replace our numbers. One does not recover an economy by being infertile.
Kalley's facts *might* support the conclusion that a state can enact these "marriage protection" amendments and still survive economically ... how does that prove that marriage equality has zero economic impact? Using Kalley's logic, SSMer could easily point to Michigan as an example of how devastating these "marriage protection" laws are. (And there would be no more truth in that claim than in Kalley's)