

Attention, Startups: Move to New England. Your Gay Employees Will Thank You. - bbuderi
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/11/14/attention-startups-move-to-new-england-your-gay-employees-will-thank-you/

======
parenthesis
I think there ought to be a clear separation made between religious/cultural
marriage (marriage1) and state-recognised unions (marriage2).

Then:

The Catholic Church can allow itself only to marry1 heterosexual,
undivorced1(and maybe 2 too?) couples.

Some weird cult (so long as no laws are broken) can marry1 several people
together into one union.

Gay couples can marry2 regardless of what any religion or cultural group
thinks, and can also marry1 in a liberal church, if they so wish.

etc. etc.

And the state can allow any two consenting (unmarried2) adults to marry2. And
this doesn't mean much more than that they become each others' next-of-kin,
they automatically inherit upon the death of the other, have certain housing /
visiting in hospital rights etc.. So even, e.g. two pensioner friends with no
family could marry2 for companionship and security (even if they are e.g. both
female and heterosexual).

~~~
yters
I don't get the deal with gay marriage. Marriage is only meaningful because of
the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction.
Take this away, a la gay marriage, then no one cares about it.

For evidence, just look at how many people get married when they think it's
just about sticking around with another person. Pretty much zilch, i.e. the
number of people co-habitating vs marrying in England.

So, if gay people want an official marriage because marriage is special, they
are undermining themselves by helping to destroy the institution they value.
It's like: because I think the Olympics are special I think they should allow
me to compete for the US. If they did this, no one would like the Olympics and
they would cease to be special.

I don't get it.

~~~
ingenium
It's not about having a hospitable environment for reproduction (though gay
couples would obviously like to get married before adopting), it's about being
able to have the other legal rights that straight married people do, such as
hospital visitation and decision rights, health insurance, tax benefits, etc.
Civil unions only offer about 1/6 of the legal rights that marriage does.

As a gay man, I don't really care what it's called, but the reason we push for
"marriage" over "civil unions" is because of these legal rights. The laws are
written for marriage, not civil unions.

It's also about the promise of marriage. Where in the typical marriage vows is
reproduction mentioned? "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for
better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love
and to cherish, till death us do part." That is what it's about...that
promise. That commitment with the one you love.

~~~
mattmaroon
Civil unions also just sound a little too "separate but equal" to me. Despite
not really having a dog in this race (I have one gay couple that I'm friends
with, and the one I know best is glad there's no marriage here because
otherwise her partner would want to and she doesn't) I just can't be happy
with civil unions. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not good
enough.

~~~
ingenium
Yeah you're right. What I was getting at is that they should be equal,
regardless of the name. I was thinking more along the lines of what rms said
his comment on here, where he thinks there shouldn't even be marriage but just
be civil unions for all. I don't really care what that thing is called,
marriage or civil union or some other term, as long as it's the same for gay
and straight couples.

------
nostrademons
Wouldn't it be better, long term, to stay in California and work towards
changing cultural values so that gay marriage is no longer a controversial
issue?

I'm from Massachusetts. I'm exceptionally proud that my state was the first to
legalize gay marriage. But I'm worried that it'll just make us into an enclave
while the rest of the country says, "Oh, those crazy New Englanders, it's just
gays and hippie liberals up there. Don't bother listening to a word they say."

Prop 8 failed by 5% of the electorate. If you could convince 5% of California
voters that the sky does not fall when gay people get married, you could win
rights for all 36 million of California's citizens. That's 6 times bigger than
Massachusetts, and close to 3 times bigger than the total population of New
England. And it'd provide an example that's impossible to marginalize for the
rest of the nation.

------
geebee
On a side note - Prop 8 raises a very interesting constitutional question for
California. The first initiative to ban gay marriage passed by a wide margin,
then was struck down by the courts. The next initiative was framed as a
constitutional amendment, and passed narrowly.

If the initiative process can be used trivially in a "%50 + 1" way to deny
civil rights to a minority group, then does California have a meaningful
constitution? If an initiative appears to violate the constitution, and it's
fairly trivial to get it on the ballot as an amendment to the constitution,
then the notion that an initiative could be unconstitutional becomes
meaningless, right?

So I actually do hope that the courts strike this one down. Partly because I'm
opposed to prop 8, of course, but also because I don't want a state
constitution that can be changed in such a meaningful way by a "fifty plus
one" majority.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
" I don't want a state constitution that can be changed in such a meaningful
way by a "fifty plus one" majority."

Then amend the constitution, if it is so "trivial."

$25M from LDS really helped the pro-Prop 8 lobby. The amount of dramatic fear
mongering that went on was staggering (Teachers will be forced to make your
kids queer! If gays get married, your marriage is worthless!)

Fundamentally, there is no argument against gay marriage that does not involve
religion. Separation of church and state and equal protection under the law
together will make this a SCOTUS issue, IMHO. IANAL.

~~~
geebee
"Then amend the constitution, if it is so 'trivial'"...

I should probably clarify what I mean by "trivial" - I mean this relative to
the usual process of amending the constitution. In a purely political sense,
it was not "trivial" for the pro prop-8 even to get a 52% majority on this
issue from a political point of view - it took a tremendous amount of money
and effort.

What I mean is that the difference between getting prop 8 passed as a
constitutional amendment and as a standard statute seems fairly "trivial" when
you consider how profoundly different these types of legislation are... one is
essentially beyond the reach of the courts.

I've read something similar to what jorgeortiz85 wrote - that a true
structural change in the constitution can't be enacted with the "%50 + 1"
initiative process.

But what I saw here was that prop 22 was passed by the voters, struck down by
the courts as unconstitutional, and then resubmitted as an amendment. If it's
not much harder to submit it as an amendment, then every initiative that could
be deemed unconstitutional would just automatically be submitted as an
amendment - and if the courts are lenient about allowing major changes to be
submitted as amendments, then it would be "trivial" to use the "%50+1"
majority to put minorities at a legal disadvantage, outside constitutional
review.

As for what it takes... shoot, I'm really pretty ignorant here. I think it's
just a matter of getting more signatures... I think it's about 50% more, but I
really don't know, and I'm not sure how to look this up... if anyone does
know, please post!)

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Right, it is much easier to change the california constitution than most other
states.. which has led to its current 110+ pages and 500+ amendments.

As for what it takes, you can see that right here:
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_h.htm>

I fundamentally agree with you that 50%+1vote is flawed and puts minorities at
a disadvantage.

------
swombat
Oh come on.

I'm all for gay rights, but this article's premise is completely ridiculous.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Why do sentences that start with "I'm all for gay rights, but..." make me feel
all skeevy?

~~~
LPTS
Some of my best friends start there sentences with "I'm all for gay rights,
but...", but...

------
sanj
I was talking to my wife this morning about this discussion, and the notion
that having one of each sex as parents being important. She's got (among other
degrees and years of relevant experience) a Masters in this from Harvard.

It turns out that the literature about child development finds that much more
important than "one of each" parent is having multiple available adult figures
around that a kid feels comfortable talking to.

This is for at least three reasons:

1\. The kid can get multiple viewpoints.

2\. The kid, during adolescence goes through the process of distancing
themselves from their parents and during that time needs other sources of
adult guidance.

3\. The kid can compartmentalize what they talk to different adults about (one
about sex, one about drugs, hopefully me about rock and roll.)

Lacking that, a kid will get information from other kids. That's a dangerous
road.

------
DaniFong
Unfortunately for those of us without American citizenship, or with spouses of
the same-sex who are non-citizens, at the federal level the country refuses to
recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of immigration. In other words,
our families are not given the same rights to be here. People in such a
situation are given no respite through Massachusetts, though they are able to
move to, for example Canada (which has much simpler immigration policies for
skilled workers).

------
axod
Equal rights? sure. But is it _really_ that much of a big deal to just call it
something other than 'marriage'?

~~~
ivankirigin
The way to phrase your suggestion: marriage is a cultural institution, not
civic. There shouldn't be laws about cultural institutions.

People should just do whatever they want.

~~~
axod
Yeah it's all well and good to say you should be able to do what you want, but
you have to take responsibility for society as a whole. Is poligamy valid in
law? not here and rightly so I'd say. Also, it's just not very nice to hijack
words.

It's like people who call HTML a programming language.

~~~
Retric
What's wrong with poligamy? I am all for protecting the young, but WTF do you
care what three forty year old people do in their own home?

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> WTF do you care what three forty year old people do in their own home

Have you read ANYTHING about these polygamous communities? They produce cast
off boys and a trickle of 15 year old girls fleeing rape by 50 year old men. I
would argue these are long term consequences of polygamy itself, not features
of communities that happen to practice it.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
I read your argument as: insular religious extremists do bad things!
Therefore, we should also deny thinking and responsible adults freedom to live
as they please.

If anything, the lesson is that making something illegal pushes it
underground, which makes it harder to protect those that may suffer from it in
addition to punishing those that would gain from it. This is a lesson
demonstrated over and over again -- there are even comments about it in the
Tao Te Ching.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
There are of course non-isolated societies in the world that allow polygamy.
You wouldn't want to live in any of them.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
I'd like you to a cite a source about where I would and would not want to
live.

------
psyklic
Gay culture in CA, especially in San Francisco and West Hollywood, is
unparalleled. CA is very liberal in terms of gay rights and civil unions. The
tech companies in CA are also very liberal -- both Google and Apple broke
their informal policies to condemn the amendment. Hence, CA is still a great
place to live for gay people.

In only a few years since prop 22, an amazing additional ~5% of voters
switched their vote. It's only a matter of time before the amendment is
repealed by voters, if the courts do not remove it first!

------
Alex3917
"But now there’s a reason to rethink going to California. If you do, you’ll be
sending your employees to a state where a majority of the voting population
says gay people aren’t entitled to equal rights under the law."

How is this any different than Connecticut? If the majority of the voting
population supported same-sex marriage then it wouldn't have had to be done by
the courts.

As bad as prop 8 is, at least it will be overturned in a couple years. Whereas
if they hadn't passed the prop to fund a high speed train it could have taken
another thirty years. So yeah, the people of California are bigoted, but New
England is no better, and in another two years your state is going to have
both equal rights and the beginning of a functional mass transit system, so
really you're going to be even better off than you were before.

------
josefresco
By that logic, moving from Boston to Cape Cod would be even wiser, as
Provincetown is pretty much the Northeast Gay capital of the United States
(and as a bonus you get beaches and quiet time in the Winter when all the
tourists leave)

/lives on Cape Cod ... not gay ... not that there's anything wrong with that

~~~
fallentimes
And there's much better ganja anyway

~~~
sethg
Massachusetts: Come for the gay marriage; stay for the weed!

~~~
fallentimes
Cape Cod specifically.

------
Allocator2008
Being gay myself, I concur with the sentiments expressed in this article
generally. Though I must say that I have read enough H.P. Lovecraft to give me
pause about wanting to work in New England! Too many eldritch secrets there!
(OK, just had to go there.) :-)

~~~
ivankirigin
That's hilarious. Since Tipjoy has moved back to Boston, I can assure you we
have not yet been attacked by Cthulhu - though our daily prayers to Him have
probably helped.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Doesn't that mean you're just first to go?

Oh well, at least the rest of us will get a little more time.

------
RobertL
Good idea... maybe all the gays will move to NE.

