from the Lie Girls.
The Economics of Same-Sex Marriage
Legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in New York would have impacts beyond allowing individuals to make the full legal commitments to their partners that opposite sex couples take for granted. Marriage equality would provide economic benefits to New York State and New York City, especially in the years immediately following enactment of legislation granting this important civil right. The economic benefits would be derived primarily from the increase in visitors from other states who come to New York for the purpose of marrying or attending weddings.
Legalization of marriage for same-sex couples would also entail costs to businesses. In particular, businesses that offer health insurance to employee spouses would be required to cover same-sex spouses. However, this additional cost would be partially offset because many firms already offer coverage for domestic partners.
from Love Counts: The Economic Benefits of Marriage Equality for New York, Exective Summary.
I was listening to Doug Henwood’s radio show Beyond the News the other day, and he had a great interview with Lee Badgett on the economics of same-sex marriage. (I am always behind; this interview is from June 21, 2007.) It’s not that the legalization of gay marriage would by itself create an economic boom, but neither would it be an enormously expensive proposition, as some have argued.
Henwood interviewed Badgett on the occasion of the publication of a report, “Love Counts,” (caution, the above link goes to a .pdf file) by the New York City Comptroller’s Office. What’s important is the way these cool facts can or should counter the crazy myths spread by that small group that fears this sort of equality. Equality is an not a luxury we can’t afford. Badgett has a charmingly old-fashioned website, where you can find out more about her work, here.
Danah Boyd on Class, Facebook and MySpace
I want to take a moment to make a meta point here. I have been traipsing through the country talking to teens and I’ve been seeing this transition for the past 6-9 months but I’m having a hard time putting into words. Americans aren’t so good at talking about class and I’m definitely feeling that discomfort. It’s sticky, it’s uncomfortable, and to top it off, we don’t have the language for marking class in a meaningful way. So this piece is intentionally descriptive, but in being so, it’s also hugely problematic. I don’t have the language to get at what I want to say, but I decided it needed to be said anyhow. I wish I could just put numbers in front of it all and be done with it, but instead, I’m going to face the stickiness and see if I can get my thoughts across. Hopefully it works.
danah boyd
June 24, 2007
Boyd’s piece is short and impressionistic but quite effective for what it is. Even the comments on her blog are fun to read. What’s fascinating to me is the way she feels compelled to remind readers that she is just testing out ideas, not writing an “academic essay.” She’s not defensive, but she’s puzzled by the often fierce response to her piece.
“I can’t decide if the response is good or bad,” Boyd writes, “I’m clearly getting raked through the coals by lots of folks from lots of different perspectives.” One problem, she thinks, “is that I also clearly pissed off the academics by inappropriately appropriating academic terms in an attempt to demarcate groups.”
Why such a rapid shift away from a discussion of class and towards a focus on Boyd’s authority? As she says, class is a loaded subject in the United Sates. “It’s sticky,” she writes, and “uncomfortable.” I also think she hit a nerve by hinting at a critical view of the material and social privilege associated with high-status universities. This debate is really about class in academia and the way professorial privilege is policed through language.
Go Left TV: A Boot in Yer Protest Song