NOM BLOG

Minnesota Budget Office: Gay Marriage Will Hurt Minnesota Taxpayers

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 9, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Gay marriage activists continually try to push the lie that redefining marriage is an economic stimulus, but this report shows the opposite is true — redefining marriage hurts the economy." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Earlier this week, Minnesota Management and Budget predicted that redefining marriage would cost the state over $675,000 a year. This would not be offset by same-sex couples paying for marriage licenses and related expenses. The same report noted that the number of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses would also dramatically drop off after the first year.

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nationformarriage.org/), reacting to this report said: "On top of the incredible social damage caused by redefining marriage, gay marriage will place a significant economic burden on struggling states. Gay marriage activists continually try to push the lie that redefining marriage is an economic stimulus, but this report shows the opposite is true — redefining marriage hurts the economy."

Previous estimates of the number of same-sex couples who will seek marriage licenses have been exaggerated, and the positive economic impact of redefining marriage has been hugely overstated by agenda-driven think tanks such as the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Meanwhile, most of the top 10 states for business have marriage protection amendments (such as North Carolina) while most of the worst top 10 states for business have redefined marriage (such as New York) or are seeking to do so.

Brown continued: "Common sense tells us that strong economies are built on strong families, and marriage protects families and our future by giving children the mother and father they deserve and with whom they do best in life. Lawmakers in Minnesota ought to protect marriage, not redefine it."

Brown concluded: "For the good of children, of spouses, and for the benefit of Minnesota taxpayers, lawmakers should not vote to redefine marriage."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New ยง 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

22 Comments

  1. Ken
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    It's not the number of gay married couples that matter, but the number of their allies. What percentage of the people under 30 support gay marriage and gay rights? Isn't it about 70%?

    Large corporations have employees of every kind. Young employees see gay rights and gay marriage as simple fairness, so the corporations have equal-treatment policies about gays.

    It's difficult for a corporation to hire talented and educated young people of any sexuality if they are in an anti-gay state.

    Corporations are less likely to move to an antigay state.

    Corporations are less likely to hold trade shows and conventions in an antigay state.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    What, pseudo-marriage supporters lied? Hard to believe...NOT!

    Gay legislators in the MN House are arguing HF 1054 (pseudo-marriage) as I type this.

  3. Ash
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    SSM saps money from the treasury while offering no distinct benefit to society. And since there are always lawsuits against business, charities, etc. once marriage is redefined, it is reasonable to expect a further hampering of economic activity.

    Either way, ssm does not benefit, and may even harm, the economy.

  4. Ken
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Same-sex marriage does have benefits for society, because heterosexuals are unable to adopt all the children in the foster system. The state does not subsidize adopted children.

    Most large corporations already have non-discrimination policies in place. Major corporations will no longer have to gross up benefits that DOMA denies to gay couples.

    The lawsuits are only against businesses whose owners' religion centers on sex and teaches them to hate their enemies. Most people are in business to make money, not a point.

    Eventually, same-sex marriage will be boring even for evangelicals because people generally tend to love the relatives.

    If you set a precedent for determining people's rights by the financial impact, someone might do a financial impact study on other things. If they do, my church is in trouble, because our land produces no real-estate tax revenue, but if it were replaced with townhouses, it would be worth millions and the county would really rake it in.

  5. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Desperation, thy name is NOM. Keep throwing "stuff" at the wall. Nothing is sticking, yet, interestingly, there is quite a bit all over your face.

  6. Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Very interesting, coming from the State of MN. . .

    That fiscal estimate does not include the pizzed voters who are not going to donate to their campaigns any longer, and a general disrespect for politicians.

  7. John B.
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    These costs are EXACTLY the same costs that would be incurred if all of those gay men married women and lesbians married men (as NOM and their allies keep telling us we should be doing). In fact gay couples have been SUBSIDIZING the rest of you by being denied the benefits married couples automatically get.

  8. Ash
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    @Ken,

    "Same-sex marriage does have benefits for society, because heterosexuals are unable to adopt all the children in the foster system. The state does not subsidize adopted children."

    Still no reason to give same-sex couples benefits for engaging in sexual activity with each other, which is what marriage does.

    There are already benefits established by the government for people who adopt children. And, of course, there is nothing special about same-sex romantic partners taking in children that would elevate that one household type above all nonmarital household types. Single people, relatives, and groups of more than two people can all make a commitment to raise a child in need.

  9. Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Yes, John B. (Not John A.), that's the idea. Marriage is different from mere friendship, in that government has an interest on supporting it preferentially.

    No, John B.
    "gay men married women and lesbians married men (as NOM and their allies keep telling us we should be doing)"

    No one tells anyone who they should marry. Marriage is voluntary. Marriage is by consent. 1m1w marriage treats everyone equally - its conditions for marriage apply to everyone.

    That's what we are tired of telling 'gay' marriage stunts.

  10. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    @Ash, If the parents are not married, there is only one parent who can give consent, pick the child up from school, and work with doctors. If the parents are married, the children have better care. And who said anything about sexual activity? It is the opponents of gay marriage keep telling us about genitals and sex acts and diseases, while the other side is arguing love, family, and children, not sex.

    @Little Man, you just hit on the reason why gay marriage is not being "imposed" on anyone. Marriage is voluntary. However, it doesn't treat everyone equally, because, given adults who are able to give free consent, some of them are allowed to marry the people they love and others are not. We don't need the government to decide who we marry.

    @All, we have never before done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether to be kind to people.

  11. Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    No Ken, you are getting confused: I write "1m1w marriage treats everyone equally - its conditions for marriage apply to everyone."

    If you are a man and want to marry a man, 1m1w marriage applies to you just like everyone else - you are not given a license. You can consent all you want - you are still not given a license.

    What you are proposing with 'gay' marriage (and there's absolutely no legislation called adding 'gay') is to obliterate 1m1w marriage and substitute it by a marriage for 1m1w + 'gay' marriage, + 'lesbian' marriage. Still leaving out minors, polygamists, and blood-related adult couples who already love each other.

    You actually say it correctly yourself: "given adults who are able to give free consent, some of them are allowed to marry the people they love and others are not."

    Marriage based on affection is just friendship, though people might legislate is a marriage by the State. We haven't seen the animus such imposition on other people (not those who enter same-sex fake marry) will bring forth.

  12. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Ken, is there a love requirement where SSM has been entrenched in law? Nope.

    For those who'd SSM there is no gay requirement. No same-sex sexual attraction requirement. No same-sex sexual behavior requirement.

    And no adoption requirement for those who'd SSM.

    The key is not consent itself but that to which consent is given. And not just the consent of the participants, by the way, but by society -- via the governing authority.

    When the bride and groom say, I do, they form the type of relationship that is procreative in kind; it integrates the sexes; it is a foundational social institution of civil society. Marriage law is justified by the marriage idea; an idea that SSMers reject outright and against which they promote a specious substitution for marriage (SSM).

    The entrenchment of SSM in law is not justified. It is an arbitrary exercise of governmental power. As such it is an imposition.

    Note that this does not mean that the Government forces people to SSM. It means that the Government no longer can justify marriage law based on the marriage idea. Instead, the SSM imposition arbitrarily sets gay identity politics over and above marriage itself. One direct effect is to treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. That is the meaning of this imposition: the supremacy of gay identity politics -- over marriage but also over much else.

  13. Ash
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    @Ken,

    "@Ash, If the parents are not married, there is only one parent who can give consent, pick the child up from school, and work with doctors. If the parents are married, the children have better care."

    Marriage is not required to give joint parental/caregiver rights to same-sex partners; and indeed, it's hard to imagine how it would without diminishing the status of natural parents.

    In any case, there are numerous nonmarital households that may need to establish another adult as a child's designated caregiver. This goes back to what I mentioned about ssm offering no distinct benefit to society. No argument about what same-sex couples need or can do justifies extending marriage to only those types of relationships.

    Who is talking about sexual activity?

    Well, marriage is a relationship presumed sexual. That's allegedly why limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is considered to be an injustice to homosexual people.

  14. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    @Ash

    I suppose you have never had to manage the healthcare and affairs of a dying person to whom you do not have a familial relationship through marriage. It costs hundreds of dollars for the legal documents, which don't cover all the ground as a marriage license, which only costs $30. When they examine the documents it takes time away from emergency medical care. The only reason antigay people want to prohibit marriage for gay people is to give them inferior legal status.

  15. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    @Little Man

    You remind me of Rick Santorum, who was absolutely right when he said that if we allow a man to marry a woman, then a man will want to marry two women, and there we slip into polygamy.

    I finally realized that you don't really understand what a gay person is. Now it makes sense.

  16. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    @Little Man

    There is sufficient legal precedent, in court decisions and in laws, to affirm gay people as an identifiable minority. Just now, I looked at the requirements for a marriage license in my state. It says that two people can get married, but not if they are of the same sex. That is a prohibition aimed squarely at gay people, the legislative history proves it. One-man one-woman marriage is not equal for all. The laws say so!

  17. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    @Chairm,

    Gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage in any country or state where same-sex marriage is legal. It removes the requirement for opposite sexes and all else stays the same. The whole point is to be included as equals.

    I personally support heterosexual civil marriage as it stands. I also support the idea that each church can define religious marriage as it chooses, and can determine freely who is and is not eligible for it.

  18. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    @Chairm,

    For example, if two men get a civil marriage, I believe their church has and should have the right to refuse to officiate at it or to recognize it as a marriage after it's done. Their church also has and should have the right to excommunicate them because of it.

    I also believe that if two men belong to a church that solemnizes gay marriages, that the law ought to permit that.

    I also believe that if two men get married, the next-door neighbors have a right to consider it not a real marriage and think less of them because they did it.

  19. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    @Chairm

    Everyone can have whatever opinion they choose. They can speak publicly to convince others.

    However, one's right to one's opinions ends at their fist. No one can deprive anyone else of their rights, and no one can harm or induce others to do harm.

  20. Ash
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    @Ken,

    You go to the benefits of marriage, but cannot explain why society has an interest in recognizing same-sex couples for engaging in sexual activity--which is what marriage does.

    All of the arguments about hospital and legal benefits constitute a red herring. Because even if same-sex couples were given all of those benefits, SSMers wouldn't settle for them not having the word "marriage," without which they cannot be celebrated for engaging in sexual activity. Even if we gave them the word "marriage," and gave opposite-sex couples another word in the law, SSMers wouldn't approve, because the societal message that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality wouldn't transmitted in the law.

    If marriage is stripped of all legal and financial benefits, society would still have an interest in recognizing man-woman unions. Indeed, marriage far predates most benefits currently attached to it.

    But you have failed to identify one benefit brought to the public by recognizing the sexual activity of unrelated same-sex couples. And yes, that's the goal of the ssm movement, believe it or not.

  21. Posted May 14, 2013 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    "I finally realized that you don't really understand what a gay person is."

    And, of course, you will put yourself as the judge of that.

    You already told me: A 'gay' is a person who says he is 'gay' (and you don't mean glad).

    I immediately realized you don't know beans what you are talking about, Ken. But talk you do (or write). Well, go ahead.

  22. Posted May 14, 2013 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    Now, I see, I'm getting Ken the 'authority':

    He writes: "There is sufficient legal precedent..."

    At the State level, in a few States 12/50=0.24
    Not at the Federal level.

    In any State, however they define marriage, the conditions set by the State for a marriage license, apply to all. Marriage doesn't apply to all - but the conditions do - in every State, and also at the Fed. level.

    Ken, you write: " two people can get married, but not if they are of the same sex. That is a prohibition aimed squarely at gay people, the legislative history proves it. "

    There's no prohibition regarding sexual orientation in marriage, in any State. You 'guys' or 'gays' (whatever) just do your thing. Who really cares? But when you try to appropriate marriage you gradually create animus towards your so-called 'minority'. A minority has to be detectable (not delectable). Otherwise, it just another church. Oh, you would call it a 'community', and then say it's many 'communities'.

    How about the name:
    "The Glad Community of Reverse Sexuality of the Latter Days"?

    I think that would be a cool name to go by. It's up to you.