To get us to bull market, NOM turns to bull's back end exports
See if you can follow this logic:
Make no mistake: if your elected officials or business leaders think gay marriage is the key to economic development - watch out. Your state economy is about to be in (more) trouble.
The New York Post, in fact, just published the results of a survey saying 36% of under-30 New Yorkers plan to flee the state:
[clip from NY Post article that doesn't have first thing to do with SSM]
Meanwhile, foreclosures are up in New York while dropping in most the rest of the U.S.
Like we said, if your government or business leaders think gay marriage is the key to economic competitiveness, your economy is in trouble!
Bloomberg's Claim That "Global Competitiveness" Depends on SSM is Absurd [NOM blog]
So wait: To embolden their case that same-sex marriage won't help the state's economy, NOM is turning to the under-30 population trends of the state before it ever gets marriage equality?! By what token?! I mean, if there is any rational under-30 consideration to be had ere (and it's a stretch, regardless), wouldn't the related argument suggest that some young people leave because the state doesn't yet provide the freedom to marry to same-sex couples? Because one can't judge the effects of a concept by using a state that decidedly does not offer it!
And then there's the mention of foreclosures. Again: What? WHAT?!?! If there is any sort of housing market argument to be made here (a stretch, again), wouldn't the claim be that more encouragement of family stability would lead to more stability in terms of the securing and financing of a home? Why, exactly, is stopping gays from a civil marriage license -- an already-state-recognized civil license that New York's gay couples can obtain in four nearby states or via a quick Amtrak ride to D.C., let's not forget -- going to reduce repossessions?! What, do they think gay New Yorkers are going to use the money they intended to spend on honeymoon cruises to instead pay off random strangers' mortgages. Because that seems unlikely, at best.
NOM's been all about this lately, working to discredit anyone who accurately notes the basic, no-brainer idea of equality being much more forward-thinking and advantageous to the longterm, sustainable global market than is that unbenificial commodity known as bias. And you know what? Fine. Whatever. Let them try to make that case for an increasingly weary nation that is ever-more perceptive of the misfocus and mispriorities that got us off track in the first place ("BUSH '04 -- Stop the campaign manager Mehlman from marrying and all will be right in the world!"). Because if these are the kinds of arguments on which they are basing their organizational future, then we are more than excited about our soon-to-materialize ability to reclaim the term "nom" for the joy that is eating rather than for the anti-joy that is discrimination.
comments powered by Disqus