tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8448663046375322498.post6038143365047426620..comments2023-10-23T08:56:50.127-06:00Comments on Angry by Choice: A Reason to Vote No on Nov 6The Loraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8448663046375322498.post-90427830281330015832012-10-28T22:13:50.723-06:002012-10-28T22:13:50.723-06:00I agree with most everything your friend wrote. I...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.<br />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.Bendnoreply@blogger.com