The Capital Times from Madison, Wisconsin cites the beneficial economic effects of the pro-marriage policies in Massachusetts in an editorial this week:
“Massachusetts is the only state in the union that allows same-sex couples to marry. Since permitting gays and lesbians to formalize their relationships several years ago, Massachusetts has experienced no great shift in its circumstance save an upsurge for the wedding planning industry. But Massachusetts business leaders believe there have been subtle yet significant benefits to the Bay State as a result of the decision to end marriage discrimination. And they think the benefits will expand as the years go on and as more and more creative and wealthy entrepreneurs decided to make the state their home and headquarters.
“That’s why the business community in Massachusetts has rallied so aggressively and completely against an attempt by outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, and his allies to promote a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.” Click here for the whole piece.
“The ban, a mean-spirited attempt to write discriminatory language into the Wisconsin Constitution, is similar to measures passed in a number of other states.”
<
p>
Nice, balanced journalism – are you SURE this isn’t a Boston paper?
<
p>
BUT – this economic analysis is an insight into the affordable housing crisis! With Gay Married DINKS (Double Income, No Kids) able to afford ANY price to make Mass. their home state, and be able to have a gay marriage – why no WONDER we have no affordable housing! We’re being outbid by a nationwide market, according to this piece!
It makes Boston look like Bush country…oh how I miss the UW!!!
It’s an editorial. They have every right to call the ban mean-spirited in an editorial. It’s not like that opinion isn’t rooted in a legitimate understanding of the issue; it’s true that the amendment would write discriminatory language into the Wisconsin Constitution (only couples consisting of one man and one woman would be able to obtain marriage licenses). The only thing that anyone’s debating is whether said discriminatory language would “trample civil rights” or “protect the sanctity of marriage.”
<
p>
Yeah, you might have been joking as with the other half of your post, but I just had to point that out. đŸ˜‰
Money to buy property, and pay property taxes, but no kids to educate, thus spending those taxes?
<
p>
Support your schools! More DINKs!
<
p>
Why do you think there are these 55+ developments, or zoning that restricts homes to two bedrooms? No kids to educate!
I live on Cape Cod, which is rapidly becoming an elderly Disneyland.
<
p>
But it’s not a home, it’s not a community, and it IS a shame.