Categories

While they campaigned last year, DFL legislators and candidates talked endlessly about their highest priority being creating jobs. This session, they’ve talked endlessly about creating jobs…while debating whether to pass legislation that made same sex marriage legal in Minnesota. Now there’s talk that giving gay couples the right to marry would add tens of millions of dollars to Minnesota’s economy:

Legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota would add $42 million to the state’s economy and $3 million in tax revenue in the first three years, according to an analysis from UCLA law school.

The Williams Institute at UCLA conducts research on “sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy,” according to its website. Last month, the institute estimated same-sex marriage in Illinois would generate more than $100 million in additional spending and $8.5 million in tax revenue in that state.

In Minnesota, analysts figured, about 5,000 gay couples would choose to marry in the three years following legalization of same-sex marriage. A bill to make gay marriage legal is expected to be come to a vote later this session in both the state House and Senate.

Roughly $28 million would be spent on those weddings, the analysts figured, plus about $14 million in tourism-related spending by out-of-town guests. That activity would yield roughly $3 million in tax revenue for state and local governments, the report said.

Saying that this ‘study’ is suspect is understatement. The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That’s why people don’t take their studies seriously.

This UCLA ‘study’ is more of a lifeline to legislators in need of political cover than it is a serious, peer-reviewed report that passes the laugh test.

Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be surprising if the DFL attempted to use the UCLA study to justify their pursuing their radical, special interest-driven agenda. They need their special interests engaged to win elections. If they have to say foolish things to keep their special interest contributors contributing, then that’s what they’ll do.

A vote on this ‘DFL jobs bill’ is expected before the end of this session. It’s great to see that the DFL is keeping its promise to put creating jobs at the top of its agenda.

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Will gay marriage create jobs?”

  • eric z says:

    “The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That’s why people don’t take their studies seriously.”

    Would there be a verification link, or two, where I could source check that hummer of a defamatory statement.

    Sure opinion is not actionable, but “famous for their radicalism” is not opinion, but a statement that can be challenged for factual backing up. It is a detail, a tree and not the forest, but sometimes early post comments are so striking …

    Finally, opponents of allowing gay people equal civil rights, they do not exhibit a “radical, special interest-driven agenda?” Carrying their bibles and all…?

    To me, getting into somebody’s face and telling them what their lifestyle decisions should be is anti-liberty, and it seems that the liberty wing of the GOP has accepted that as a premise, with, of course, the Dobson’s and Parrish’s of your tent being in a snit and sulking. Holding back reform, keeping “the faith” vs winning elections based on concepts of liberty, is an agenda, which to me is a “radical” one for political activists in your party to hold.

  • J. Ewing says:

    Here’s a crazy idea: how about the government legalizes OPPOSITE-SEX marriage, and offers incentives for it? Since there are far more heterosexual couples living together who would get married given such an incentive, wouldn’t the economic benefit be far greater?

    And what makes anybody think that gay couples are being denied any “right,” whatsoever? There is no right to a civil marriage unless you meet the requirements set by government. A religious marriage, yes, is a civil right, but that is already available to any gay couple that wants it. Why is that not enough?

  • eric z. says:

    J. Ewing – I suppose it is a civil right to bring firearms to a wedding site, or some Second Amendment advocates would say so, as would shotgun wedding fathers.

  • Jethro says:

    “The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That’s why people don’t take their studies seriously.”

    Would there be a verification link, or two, where I could source check that hummer of a defamatory statement.

    Eric, you might want to check the definition of defamatory. Accusing the UCLA law school of radicalism is not defamatory in nature.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, where do you come up with these BS comments? Nobody said anything about bringing firearms to weddings but that’s what you’re asking about. Isn’t it time to meander back to living on this planet?

Leave a Reply