Gay Weddings Boost CA Economy!

[3113]

I suspect on this issue people will vote their beliefs more than their wallet

Of course, those who put this on the ballot will vote their beliefs as well many others. However, there are a lot of voters who don't feel strongly one way or another about it, who, when polled, might say, "yes, man and woman only," but if asked will admit that they feel that way "kinda" rather than "very strongly."

These are the ones who won't bother punching either yes/no on the ballot or will punch "yes" for the amendment out of laziness ("ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality).

These *are* people who might change their minds if you tell them that gay marriages would bring in so much money to CA that they wouldn't have their taxes raised. And given how very slim the margin is on this amendment passing or not, enough of those people voting "no" on it could make the difference.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Of course, those who put this on the ballot will vote their beliefs as well many others. However, there are a lot of voters who don't feel strongly one way or another about it, who, when polled, might say, "yes, man and woman only," but if asked will admit that they feel that way "kinda" rather than "very strongly."

These are the ones who won't bother punching either yes/no on the ballot or will punch "yes" for the amendment out of laziness ("ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality).

These *are* people who might change their minds if you tell them that gay marriages would bring in so much money to CA that they wouldn't have their taxes raised. And given how very slim the margin is on this amendment passing or not, enough of those people voting "no" on it could make the difference.

The same people who would vote enthusiastically for Obama are the same ones who could make "no" pass. Unfortunately, Obama himself has taken an anti-gay marriage stance. Will this make a difference, only time will tell.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of course, those who put this on the ballot will vote their beliefs as well many others. However, there are a lot of voters who don't feel strongly one way or another about it, who, when polled, might say, "yes, man and woman only," but if asked will admit that they feel that way "kinda" rather than "very strongly."

These are the ones who won't bother punching either yes/no on the ballot or will punch "yes" for the amendment out of laziness ("ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality).

These *are* people who might change their minds if you tell them that gay marriages would bring in so much money to CA that they wouldn't have their taxes raised. And given how very slim the margin is on this amendment passing or not, enough of those people voting "no" on it could make the difference.

There are a relatively few people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage and there are more who favor letting people do what they want, as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses.

Then there are are many who tend to be somewhat against the idea of gay marriage, but don't really care that much. In the last election where this was an issue, the opposition was described as a mile wide and an inch deep. In other words, there are many people who don't feel strongly about it, but tend to oppose gay marriage on general principles.

The way to beat the initiative would be to convince this majority that there is no good reason to try to deprive millions of people of the rights that everybody else enjoys.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There are a relatively few people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage and there are more who favor letting people do what they want, as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses.

Then there are are many who tend to be somewhat against the idea of gay marriage, but don't really care that much. In the last election where this was an issue, the opposition was described as a mile wide and an inch deep. In other words, there are many people who don't feel strongly about it, but tend to oppose gay marriage on general principles.

The way to beat the initiative would be to convince this majority that there is no good reason to try to deprive millions of people of the rights that everybody else enjoys.

Precisely. Make sure that the point is made that marriage is, by law, a civil contract and than consenting adults have the right to enter contracts. Period. Should work.

 

[3113]

Precisely. Make sure that the point is made that marriage is, by law, a civil contract and than consenting adults have the right to enter contracts. Period. Should work.

Well, it *should* work. But I honestly think that greed is more likely to work People will toss a lot of principles they say they hold sacred right out the window if you offer them cold hard cash.

I can honestly see a lot of people who now say they oppose gay marriage changing their minds if, say, they work in the hotel business and their empty hotel gets filled up with newlyweds. Or if they run a catering service that's about to go under and suddenly, thanks to gay weddings, they're back in the black.

 

[Carnevil9]

Precisely. Make sure that the point is made that marriage is, by law, a civil contract and than consenting adults have the right to enter contracts. Period. Should work.

I doubt it. Most objections are emotional, not logical. So logical arguments are probably wasted.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, it *should* work. But I honestly think that greed is more likely to work People will toss a lot of principles they say they hold sacred right out the window if you offer them cold hard cash.

I can honestly see a lot of people who now say they oppose gay marriage changing their minds if, say, they work in the hotel business and their empty hotel gets filled up with newlyweds. Or if they run a catering service that's about to go under and suddenly, thanks to gay weddings, they're back in the black.

This is a plus, but not really as major a thing as you might think. $370 million is a lot of money, but a trivial, amount compared to the overall California economy.

I agree with what Carney says, that this is an emotional argument. Fundamental churches, in particular, warn of the risks associated with a person with a small child contracting a gay marriage. The risks are exaggerated, but they do exist. After all, there are gay Humbert Humberts in this world. I believe they are called "Chicken hawks." I also realize that a woman who has a young daughter and marries a man, puts that daughter at much greater risk of sexual abuse than if she had married another woman.

I believe the best appeal is to people's sense of justice and fair play. After all, a gay couple is harming nobody, and why should millions of people be deprived of a right that everybody else takes for granted.

I also believe that excessive stridency on the part of militant gays might alienate a lot of people who would otherwise tend to be on their side. Rosie O'Donnel would be a negative factor, while Ellen DeGeneres would be a positive one.

In other words, TV ads opposing the initiative would be better concentrating on a warm, loving gay household, whose members have been deprived of rights for no good reason. Maybe include happy, well-adjusted children.

 

[3113]

This is a plus, but not really as major a thing as you might think. $370 million is a lot of money, but a trivial, amount compared to the overall California economy.

Better than nothing, and we only get that if there's gay marriage over three years. I'd happily tell people on the fence about this issue the if the amendment passes, California will be throwing away $370 million dollars in weddings and tourism...at least.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If money, per se, motivated change every state would legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution, and whatever else you can imagine....like Nevada.

 

[3113]

Final news:

California's highest court Wednesday refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, clearing the final hurdle for gay couples to start tying the knot this month....In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted chaos if couples married in the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gay couples in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

So, it looks like there will be plenty of gay couples legally married in CA prior to November. As this makes their marriages legally binding no matter what the outcome of the November amendment (yes?)...I wonder if that will change opinion some. I mean, if these couples marry and the sky doesn't fall (male/female marriage remains unaffected) wouldn't that undermine one major argument from these anti-gay marriage groups?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

They had already made their reasons very clear in the original decision.

 

[elsol]

Final news:


So, it looks like there will be plenty of gay couples legally married in CA prior to November. As this makes their marriages legally binding no matter what the outcome of the November amendment (yes?)...I wonder if that will change opinion some. I mean, if these couples marry and the sky doesn't fall (male/female marriage remains unaffected) wouldn't that undermine one major argument from these anti-gay marriage groups?

Are you frakin' kidding me? Hasn't the world been 'ending' for the last 10000 years and religious whackos are still saying it's just around the corner?

Oh look, a hurricane just blew New York away... it's because we allows those faggots to marry! God Hates America!

Like God gives a fuck! Personally, I think God is worried about his 'master' plan in the hands of humans and has had to stay his hand a number of times to give cockroaches their shot at the brass ring.