Gov. Rick Perry is considering running for prez. And on the quasi-campaign trail, he's taken to saying this about gay marriage:
"There is still a land of opportunity, friends — it's called Texas," Perry said. "We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. ... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?"
[Related: "Gay Marriage as an Economic Development Plan" by Maggie Gallagher, 03/21/11]
13 Comments
Way to go Gov. Perry. If there is a job for me in Texas I will move away from MA. I have a college degree in mechanical engineering along with a teachers certification and license to teach mathematics. Anyone in Texas interested then please let me know?
The two hardly seem mutually exclusive...
They aren't mutually exclusive, but typically the sort of policies liberals like do not create jobs outside the public sector. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim -as Gov. Chafee has- that same-sex marriage will help your state's economy, you need to back it up with some data. Texas does not have a state income tax. If you want to create jobs, getting rid of that is a much better place to start than getting rid of ordinary marriage.
To Mike:
Maybe not but results matter. Has anyone read the economic reports done by Yahoo state by state. Texas is among the best and RI among the worst. If SSM is so good for RI then why do companies want to leave the state for places like Texas?
In theory, they are not.
In practice though, politicians who support same-sex "marriage" also support destructive economic policies. Excluding Vice President Dick Cheney and Governor Andrew Cuomo, the number of politicians who support same-sex "marriage" and oppose destructive economic policies can probably be counted on two hands.
Attempts to link same-sex marriage and the economy seem pretty pathetic to me, whether the argument is that it helps or hurts. At most, it's a boon for wedding catering, photography, and hotels. If you look at the private sector, you'd see that Fortune 500 companies are hardly fleeing gays -- in fact, they've led the way on nondiscrimination and domestic partner benefits.
John N.- Rhode Island does not have same-sex marriage, but it is certainly true that there is no observable economic damage done to Texas or any other state because they do not have same-sex marriage.
Sometimes I forget to add enough context:
Gov. Chafee in his inaugural address called gay marriage an important part of his economic development plan. Yes that's right.
That's why I framed it Perry. v. Chafee
Oh Mke P.
I live in MA and have seen the economic damage that SSM has done in this state. The most obvious place was in health care and health benefits.
You see the insurance industry is smarter than ordinary Americans. They know they cannot stop people from engaging in risky human behavior that affects their health( for example smoking). But they make sure that they do not pay for it. Instead if you wish to conduct yourself in a certain way then you are financially responsible for your actions. This is why smokers pay higher rates.
The first damage SSM did was to the business sector. Because homosexuals insist on engaging in a human conduct that leads to higher rates of disease and shorter life spans the costs to insure them cost more. When homosexuals tried to buy individual policies they either had to pay high premiums like for example diabetics or they were uninsurable. But SSM allowed them to push the costs of their human conduct onto someone else.
The push the costs onto innocent straights that do not participate in this conduct or onto small businesses which no had higher costs to cover same sex relationships. Was this fair to the small business owner or to people like myself? Why is it my fiscal responsibility to pay for your sex life? No it was not. This is what SSM did in MA.
It made MA less competitive to other states. No problem thought right? They could just move their business to Texas which does not have SSM and therefore business owners do not have to pay for the homosexuals sex habits.
Oh John N.
You've seen the economic damage first-hand or do you want to believe what people do behind closed doors somehow has a bearing on you? Same-sex risky behavior is no different than those of us heterosexual people...married man speaking here. Homosexuals have sex...you do not? You don't speed, or drink or smoke....no risky behaviors that need mentioned? Hmmm... Its unfortunate that you confuse your moral beliefs with basic economics and health care. It is a failed premise that straights are "innocent", so gays must be the "guilty" party? I don't know...I'm pretty sure more than 50% of traditional marriages end in divorce and I don't see gay neighbors bringing down property values...just the contrary. Take a look around, DOMA, Maggie G & John N. As you continue spitting venom at those who are different from you, culture is evolving and progressing, not stagnant in the 1950's (Leave It To Beaver). By the way, I would like to sharing an opposing argument by a sex educator, Dan Savage.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=7655085
Based on the 2010 census, Texas gained 4 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives. No other state gained that many seats. Rhode Island didn't gain any seats at all.
I'd like to note that, depending on the wording of the law legalizing SSM, jobs created by Christians, Muslims, or Jews who don't want to prefer gays in adoption services, pay spousal benefits to gay lovers, be forced to provide services for gay 'marriages' etc. *will* go elsewhere. With over 80% of Americans belonging to a religion that does not approve of elevating gay sex to the level of heterosexual marriage, I think you'll find (for instance) the number of wedding photographers who stop doing business in that state will be greater than the number of gay ceremonies providing extra income to those who stay.
To Caleb:
You totally bypassed the meaning of the post. Of course what homosexual people do behind closed doors does not affect me personnaly. If does affect us finiancially. It does affect our health and the insurance costs.
The evil thing the homosexual activists did was when they hijacked the civil rights movement and demanded that insurance rights for homosexuals be equally available to them. The fact that the mortality rate for homosexuals and the higher disease rates were ignored. This means the rates were raised for everybody to accomdate the homosexuals. Another clever homosexual trick. They want the right to do this and say what I do behind closed doors is none of your business. Ahh but they do not want the financial burden of this choice. Let those of us who do not practice this lifestyle pay higher premiums to pay for this habit. This is like making equal rates for smokers and non smokers.
Again I pose the same question that was posed in my post but you ignored. Why is it my financial responsibility to pay for your sex life?