Field of Science

A Reason to Vote No on Nov 6

A friend of mine posted an impassioned argument to Vote No on the marriage amendment on Facebook. She wanted to get her message out, so I offered to share it here and she said yes. I have copied her post in its entirety. So without further ado...
This is not spam, this is not meant to seem like a mass message, (although I sent it to a mass) this is a personal message that I, Jenny, am sending, with good intent, to you. Whether you know me well, from the past or only in passing, I REALLY want you to read what I have to say regardless of your opinions or lack there of on politics. 
I'll try to be brief!
In 11 days we will all have the option to cast a vote. I don't care which party/person you vote for. That is none of my business or concern. What I care about is how you vote on the marriage amendment.
*Please don't stop reading* 
I've talked to many people that I consider friends and even casual acquaintances about the marriage amendment and I've heard a startling amount of people tell me that they intent to vote "yes" to approve the amendment. Not because they claim to be bigots, not because they're particularly religious (which shouldn't matter regardless), but simply because they "don't care" or "don't know any gay people". 
Voting to permanently deny rights THAT THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE to a large population of our neighbors is barbaric. I can't believe that at this point in history we're wasting our time with something of this nature and even more, can't believe that people that I know are entertaining it! 
This is not a gay rights issue. This is a HUMAN rights issue. You don't have to know any gays to recognize that. 
Without going into sob stories about anyone that I know I want to talk about practicality. If you are religious and feel like that is the reason you should vote "yes" please do me a few favors: #1- Please remember that church is supposed to be separate from state. Your religious establishment will never be required to marry anyone that it doesn't want to, as churches (synagogues, ect.) are exempt from discrimination laws. It's also not fair to impose your religious beliefs into law. #2- God will not cast you down. I'm sure that you've 'sinned against him' in many ways, like fornication, birth control, using his name in vain, coveting your neighbor... you can still make it up to heaven. #3- If gays earn the right to marry (which is not what we're voting on.. they still will not have equal rights if you vote "no") it will not affect the sanctity of anyone's heterosexual marriage! That's like saying your flower garden is no longer beautiful because your neighbor planted flowers in their yard too. Your garden is NOT less beautiful! 
If you are voting "yes" because you don't know any gay people, please (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) recognize how asinine it is to try and prevent rights to a population just because you don't know them. In fact, if you don't know them, even better! It will affect you less than people that do know gays! 
And lastly, if you intend to vote "yes" because you just don't care, then do me an immediate favor: go to my page directly, find the friends tab, and select delete. I do not want to be so much as a casual aquaintence with anyone of your sorts. In fact, if you intend to vote "yes" for any reason, do that please. 
All moral ambiguity aside, can we not all see the economic benefits to gay marriage?! Weddings are expensive! More weddings means more venues being booked, more dresses/suits being sold, the food industry, the booze industry, jobs, taxes on marriage certificates, the cost of lawyers for the divorces... think about it. You don't even have to like the idea of gay marriage to like the extra flow of cash that would go into our economy.
Recognize, friends-that-despise-politics, that you DO NOT have to vote for a candidate to vote on the marriage amendment!!! If you so choose, you can check only one box and submit your vote. If you are one of these people, then I beg you to do so. Do it for your neighbors. Do it for any LGBT person that you know. Do it for the ones you haven't yet met. Do it for our children, that need to know that no group of people deserve to be bullied for something they cannot change. Set the example. 
This amendment has passed in 39 states. This amendment is not the kind of thing that Minnesotans pass. It's not how we treat each other. It's just not nice. 
PLEASE register to vote, even if it is the only box you check, vote "NO". 
The online registry is: 
Thank you for reading my words,

1 comment:

Bend said...

I agree with most everything your friend wrote. I hope, but doubt that her efforts will change many minds, but perhaps they’ll encourage someone to vote who would otherwise have stayed home. But because I’m a jerk I have to correct the writer’s economic justification for state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. She argues that there would be economic benefit as people spent serious money on flowers and catering and clothing for the newly legalized ceremonies. This contention is specious because it neglects the fact that money not spent on wedding cake is almost always spent on something else. The writer’s scenario is nothing but a rehash of the broken window fallacy (a common economic misconception that is held generally by progressives). Suppose a young vandal breaks a baker’s window. The baker must then hire a glacier to replace the window. The glacier then has money to buy more meat for his family. The butcher then has money to buy a new meat cleaver. The blacksmith then has money... So the vandal has sparked economic activity and created wealth by destroying property, right? But had the baker not needed to hire a glacier, he might have used that money to buy clothing for his daughter. The tailor would have then had money for a new sewing machine... Ultimately the economy as a whole is worse off for the broken window despite the economic activity it initiated. Of course more weddings are good for florists and vinters, but to believe that more weddings are beneficial to the economy generally by virtue of the consumption of services and goods that they encourage, you must believe that that money would not be more efficiently spent somewhere else. You must believe that a lavish party is both a better investment and has a higher economic multiplying effect than paying off credit card debt and buying a new ipad.
But if same-sex weddings aren’t an economic boon, same-sex marriage certainly is, and for reasons that conservatives like to emphasize when applied to traditional marriage. Marriage simplifies contract law, making inheritance, hospital visitation, property sharing and even separation less prone to excessive litigation. It’s the opposite of the broken window fallacy here. Money that might have been spent on legal fees can be spent on other items because the marriage facilitates legal proceedings. More conservative and more relevant is that marriage provides a sense of stability and an incentive for efficient spending patterns for both partners and any children. Multiple residences are less likely and shared investments more likely for married partners as opposed to cohabitating partners. Domestic stability facilitates financial stability. Ted Olson, who successfully argued Bush v. Gore, has some remarkable insight into the economic and conservative justification for same-sex marriage. Ultimately conservative philosophy should lead one to support such unions.