This week, Grant Tennille, Arkansas’ Economic Development Commission Director, was at the Capitol trying to overturn Arkansas’ constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
What does same-sex marriage have to do with the Arkansas economy? Tennille said he thinks Arkansas could be a “leader” on the issue in the South by attracting same-sex couples as well as high-skilled jobs.
When pressed by a reporter, however, Tennille admitted he had no evidence to back up his claim. Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe issued a statement saying he did not agree with Tennille’s views on same-sex marriage.
Tennille’s economic “argument” is the latest reason offered by homosexual activists for legalizing same-sex marriage. Put simply, they’re saying that affirming homosexuality is good for the economy.
An excellent opinion editorial appeared on the website for Forbes Magazine on July 4th. In it, Jerry Bowyer disagrees with the position held by Tennille. Here are his main points:
1. Homosexual activists say legalizing same-sex marriage will cut down on paperwork and save money.
Bowyer points out large corporations are pros at handling paperwork. What they’re not prepared to absorb is the financial burden associated with being forced to offer insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners. Legalizing same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership and the like are certain to increase the price of goods and services for consumers.
2. Homosexual activists say that legalizing same-sex marriage will enable companies to recruit and retrain the best and brightest workers.
Bowyer writes that recently, the former CEO of BP, Lord Browne, called for Britain to embrace homosexual marriage because he says it is good for business. Yet, Lord Browne could offer no study or evidence to back up his statement. In fact, U.S. and U.K. growth rates were at their highest during an historic period in which the legal hostility to homosexuality was far more intense than today.
Bowyer offers two reasons the “gay-means-growth” theory is not true.
First, there are no examples in history that support the concept that a relaxed view of homosexuality brings prosperity. Boyer asks, “Did we see flows of talent to WeimarGermany during the sexually egalitarian 1920s? Did economic know-how flood into France after 1789 when the revolutionary allies of the Marquis De Sade upended the social system? Where precisely do we find this in history?”
Second, if the gay-means-growth theory were true, the “sexually liberated” countries of Europe would be outperforming the U.S. This is not the case. While the U.S. economy seems to be rebounding, the economies of the “sexually liberated” countries of Europe are slipping more and more into socialism.
Bowyer’s Conclusion
Bowyer asks a provocative question, “But what if it turns out that people really do decide where to live and work based on sexual identity politics?”
He says that by any serious estimate, homosexuals make up no more than 2-3% of the population. Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and Mormons make up roughly half the population. They’re gravely concerned about the rejection of the Bible and two millennia of marriage tradition—and about the tone of anger directed at them by homosexual activists. He concludes, “Maybe business leaders need to start thinking about how to attract their talents, too.”
