Santorum Says Gay Marriage is Bad for the Economy

Avatar

Michelle Togut

Michelle Togut resides in North Carolina with her husband and pets. She has worked as an adjunct professor of history, contributor and writer, and small-firm attorney, among other things. These days, she's trying to sell real estate. For fun, she reads political blogs of all persuasions, practices yoga, drinks wine, hikes, reads, and volunteers for a local animal rescue.

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    This makes absolutely no sense. I am sure that there are lots of businesses that would love to cater to gay marriage.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird says:

    It has the benefit of being measurable. Surely we should be able to track rates of before and after, right?Report

  3. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    How would the wedding-industrial complex suffer from their being more marriages? As same-sex marriage becomes more and more part of the cultural landscape than we are going to see more elaborate same-sex weddings. That means your goign to need more rings of both the engagement and wedding variety, fancy clothing for the happy couple, rented venues for the ceremony and party, food, alcohol, wedding cakes, photographs and video, invitations, honeymoons, etc. This is all going to add up to some rather serious spending.

    Thats just from the marriage part. Same-sex couples are going to need the same services and goods that regular couples have and than some until same-sex marriage becomes completely part of thec cultural landscape.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to LeeEsq says:

      There is also work for lawyers. Pre-nups, post-nups, spousal visas, more wills to write!!!Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I’m not convinced; I have many friends who spent thousands and thousands of dollars establishing their ‘civil marriages,’ the powers of attorney, parental rights, wills, etc. that gave their same-sex partners the same privileges (or some approximation of) that opposite-sex couples got automatically with marriage.

        While there will be some increase in pre-nups, etc., I think this is one case where attorneys will lose profitable business. Because writing up all the contractual agreements that even come close to the benefits of marriage was pretty expensive.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I was largely being tongue in cheek.Report

      • Yes! The best and highest use of money is for people to transfer it to lawyers!Report

  4. Avatar James Hanley says:

    “It’s also about a unity of men and women, for the purposes of having and raising children, and giving the child their birthright, which is to be raised by their natural mother and natural father,” he continued. “When we have less of that in America … then society struggles and suffers. Economically, it suffers.”

    My BIL and SIL couldn’t have children so they adopted two kids (brother and sister). Pretty economically sound family, too. I can’t imagine Santorum doing anything but praising them

    In related news, the Presbyterians extend Santorum an invite to go fish himself.Report

  5. Avatar Kolohe says:

    giving the child their birthright,

    But not everyone needs a watch these day due to smartphones.Report

  6. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    Whole sentences in there aren’t stupid. Marriage isn’t just a romantic relationship, especially when children are present. Families really are stronger (more resilient) with two adults to raise the children instead than one. And children should all have the chance to be raised by two loving parents. If Santorum’s train of thought wasn’t being interrupted every five seconds by the voice in his head that screams “Teh Gay! Teh Gay! Teh Gay!”, he might be worth listening to.Report