In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, sociologist Jaye Cee Whitehead shared her thoughts on economic arguments for gay marriage.
In a letter to the New York State Legislature last month, top business executives endorsed same-sex marriage on the ground that “attracting talent is key to our state’s economic future.” The signers — among them the banker Lloyd C. Blankfein, the financier Ronald O. Perelman, the real estate developer Jerry I. Speyer and the publisher Mortimer B. Zuckerman — declared that legalizing gay unions would “help maintain our competitive advantage in attracting the best and brightest people the world has to offer.”
This letter is one of many examples of promoting marriage equality as good for business.
States and cities are, as the New York executives pointed out, competing to attract talent in a globally competitive labor market. The wedding industry benefits, of course, when more couples are allowed to marry. And marriage equality is associated with revenue gains from sales taxes and license fees. Backers of gay marriage speak openly of the gains from “marriage tourism” in states that have legalized same-sex marriage.
So why shouldn’t gays and lesbians have equality and bolster the economy at the same time? In Whitehead’s eyes,
. . . supporting marriage on economic grounds dehumanizes same-sex couples by conflating civil rights with economic perks. Americans should be offended when the value of gays and lesbians is reduced to their buying power as consumers or their human and creative capital as workers. . .Worse yet, this narrative neglects the most economically vulnerable gay and lesbian couples and plays into the inaccurate stereotype of same-sex couples (particularly male couples) as being mostly well-educated and affluent.
Indeed, many proponents of same-sex marriage often point out that legalizing same-sex marriage may reduce spending on welfare programs. But, Whitehead explains why these and other economic arguments are problematic.
Supporters of same-sex marriage ought to acknowledge that marriage is not just a natural expression of human intimacy or a declaration of personal commitment; it is a form of governance. The vast expansion of the government over the past century has embedded marriage into all areas where the state and the individual intersect, from tax obligations to disability benefits to health care decisions to family law. As with any other structure of governance in a democratic society, we ought to think about its participants as citizens rather than consumers.
So if you support same-sex marriage, do so not because it brings in tax revenue and tourism dollars and prevents people from becoming a burden on the state, but because you value gay men and lesbians as citizens who deserve equal access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Comments 2
jeffdowd — May 24, 2011
I agree with the author that the economic reasons constitute the "wrong reasons." I am equally troubled by the idea that we are consumers rather than citizens. So much of our political discourse unreflexively employs this idea - referring to us as "taxpayers" instead of "citizens" is another example. Still, I would rather see same sex marriage become a reality - even for the wrong reasons - then insist on the right ones. Simply because once same sex marriage is legal, the equal access argument is easier to make.
Approval of same sex marriage has shifted strongly in support since it has been legalized in a few states. A political environment with legal same sex marriage is a far easier one to make arguments about equality. It's also noteworthy that the fear-mongering of the right is hard to maintain when same sex marriage has been legal for years and god doesn't appear any more mad at Massachusetts than at Alabama.
shotinthedark — June 7, 2011
I agree with jeffdowd and would continue that line of thought by encouraging the extension of this critique beyond the narrow constructs presented here (though they are entirely legitimate and well developed to that effect). Gay couples are not the first to find social acceptance at the behest of economic profit. The rendering of individuals as commodities and economic subjects whose value hinges upon he extent to which they can be financially exploited is a social reality that should be highlighted and censured more generally.