- Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall to define marriage as one man - one woman.
- Minnesota does not currently have marriage equality.
- If this amendment passes, it will be more difficult to effect marriage equality in the future since it will require another amendment rather than the usual process through the legislature as intended by our representative form of government.
- It is an irrefutable conclusion that, when gays marry, they spend money that they otherwise would not spend. This runs the range of a small dinner party to a fully catered affair with relatives and friends flying in from out-of-state. Guests will also spend money in retail establishments for gifts.
- Making marriage equality more difficult to attain will be perceived as a message that gays are unwelcome. In similar circumstances in North Carolina, a senior executive at Bank of America has said that doing so will have "devastating consequences." People, not just gays, do not want to move to a state where the citizenry is perceived as sanctimonious. Thus, this amendment would diminish the supply of talent available to Minnesota businesses.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
[Video] Our favorite Minnesota Marriage Twinkie is at it Again
This time Kalley Yanta draws some absurd conclusions about the economic effects of marriage equality and the consequences of anti-gay referenda. Through selective observation and the intentional confusion of causation and correlation, she makes the preposterous claim (actually regurgitating a NOM talking point) that inequality is somehow good for the economy. These are the facts: