NOM's Communications Director Thomas Peters engaged in a spirited debate on a wide range of issues surrounding marriage, corporate fairness, and the Supreme Court on CNN this weekend:
CNN has posted a transcript -- including this part about the so-called economic argument for redefining marriage:
[CNN HOST] KEILAR: But the point that I'm getting at is that when we talk about this as a business imperative, let's take a look at what this filing says. It says, recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry is more than a constitutional issue. It is a business imperative. So what do you think about that? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? Is it about more than that? Is that not enough?
PETERS: I strongly disagree with it, because, first of all, the top 10 states for growth right now in this country, nine of them have marriage protection amendments. And so, you know, where this argument comes from is the left wing, UCLA Williams Institute, which has been peddling this argument for years, that gay marriage is an economic stimulus. The very states that are currently trying to [...] legalize gay marriage, like New York and California, are not exactly in an economic picture of well-being. So, look, strong states like Indiana are moving towards marriage protection amendments. North Carolina recently passed its marriage protection amendment by 61 percent. The fact of the matter is that protecting marriage protects children and it helps businesses.
KEILAR: But, Thomas, let me ask you this. Because you have businesses now that are saying, it's costing us money. They say and this obviously gets a little complicated, but they say, same-sex couples are required to pay a Federal income tax on health benefits provided to a spouse through an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. Some employers reimburse employees for the extra tax paid. That requires extra time and money. They say it's costing them money. Do you disagree with that?
PETERS: Well, let's look at -- you used the adjective complicated and you're right, it is complicated. But here's one complicating factor that I think is being ignored in this broader debate. You know, the president is arguing in the Supreme Court that gays and lesbians are politically powerless class. And now you've been telling me time and time again that all these corporations support redefining marriage.
So I would actually ask Brian [of the Human Rights Campaign], which is it? Are gays and lesbians actually a politically powerless class or do all these corporations, the vast majority of people support redefining marriage because you can't have it both ways -- I believe the majority of Americans believe in protecting marriage and I believe that gays and lesbians are an incredibly powerful political class that are trying to redefine marriage for all of us.
12 Comments
I would agree that defending Marriage is good for business only because the surrounding communities are sick and tired of the left bullying people into agreeing with them. Instead of leaving well enough alone and letting small business owners just run their businesses and make a living, they seek compusory uniformity and disguise it as "freedom".
CNN reminds me of the government-controlled media in Japan announcing that their great country was impervious to attack from the evil United States at the same moment that Tokyo was being fire-bombed by Doolittle's raiders.
Japan was impervious, except that it wasn't.
Pseudo-marriage is a business imperative, except that it's not.
Support for this decadence is but a façade.
Corporations are interested in government money, in the form of contracts, and tax loopholes;.access to government money requires political support by all three branches of government.
They do not call it the weight of the Presidency for nothing.
I think it's great the corporate America wants to see all citizens, including citizens who are employees, to have equal legal rights.
You nailed it, Randy.
You naled it, Robert.
CNN is known as the Communist News Network as it reminds me of Pravda the media arm of the old Soviet Union.
Notice it claims that big business supports this. Once again the double standard of the liberal left. They always speak out against big business but now support big business if it supports their agenda. This hurts small business as it increases their health care costs.
Finally on what grounds does the federal government have the right to rule that if a state amends its Constitution it is now unconstitutional.
The idealogs have come to believe that simply creating an appearance of popular support is all they need to impose their agenda on a free people; that free people are mere sheep.
The idealogs also believe that if the people rise up against their tyranny they can simply hide behind the veil of anonymity.
Caught the overstatement from HRC (supposedly Human Rights Campaign, to be distinguished from Animal Rights Campaign)?
The USA Government is now supposedly supporting SSm per Prop-8, against the will of the majority of voters per Prop-8 in California.
The Executive Branch is not the entire government. And Mr. Executive Mandate doesn't make law, or decide what's constitutional or not. What a clown! It's payback time. . . And we saw Third World governments as corrupted because bribes are acceptable.
John Noe nails it. I am waiting for CNN to run a story on how big business is demanding tax cuts and why they should get them just for the asking as it is a business imperative. Having a flat or zero tax rate would really simplify their paperwork. When was the last time CNN used that argument?
"The fact of the matter is that protecting marriage protects children and it helps businesses." Again this nonsense about "protecting" marriage and children. Except that Peters, like all NOMers would know a fact if it hit them.
Bobby: Thanks for the compliment! "Except that Peters, like all NOMers would know a fact if it hit them."
You couldn't type a fact, even if you could hit the correct keys