Attention, Startups: Move to New England. Your Gay Employees Will Thank You.

http://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/11/14/attention-startups-move-to-new-england-your-gay-employees-will-thank-you/

by bbuderi • 18 years ago

24 163 18 years ago

xconomy.com

swombat4• 18 years ago

Oh come on.

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

michael_dorfman• 18 years ago

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

LPTS2• 18 years ago

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

sanj4• 18 years ago

Not according to Richard Florida. He hypothesized that a thriving gay population is a necessary (but not sufficient) characteristic of a locale that embraces the "Creative Class".

If you believe his premise -- which a lot of folks seem to -- losing a chunk of the gay (and gay-friendly) population is a serious issue for a successful startup-y environment.

Alex3917• 18 years ago

"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.

axod18• 18 years ago

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

josefresco2• 18 years ago

Separate but equal huh? I think I've heard that one before.

The racists of the 60's called, they'd like to work with you and your brilliant ideas.

axod18• 18 years ago

They aren't equal. They can never have children naturally.

They should have equal rights in terms of their union, but in terms of procreation and furthering the species etc, how can they?

Racism doesn't really have such an argument does it.

I just don't see why the word matters all that much. Surely as long as you are equal in the eyes of the law, why not have a different word to mean same sex marriage? Then if you say "joe is married" you don't have to ask "to a woman? or another man?".

Maktab3• 18 years ago

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the parent's argument, your comparison is facile. So-called 'separate but equal' legislation never provided for anything close to legal equality. Civil unions, on the other hand, could provide the same legal rights as marriage.

But that's besides the point. The real story here is that Prop. 8 passed mostly due to the high turnout of African-American voters as a result of Obama's candidacy. As a block, American-Americans tend to vote against gay rights and gay marriage issues, and so the high turnout was what swung the ballot in favour of Prop. 8.

The lesson here should be that the gay community of the US has not done enough to reach out to the African-American community in order to gain greater acceptance and understanding. Despite all the advocacy against white religious conservatives and high-profile court campaigns, there has been precious little effort in convincing voters why they have nothing to fear and why gays should have the right to marry because that would be fair and just.

Until that happens, gay Americans are going to have to be content with winning brief victories through the courts while fearing each and every time the general public is given the chance to have their own say on the issue.

mynameishere• 18 years ago

I suspect that, in general, homosexuals had better prepare themselves for some retrenchment. Their opposition is solidly "multicultural" in flavor, but all of their tactics are essentially of the same sort used against Southerners, viz, to call them "bigots". This will not work against blacks and hispanics, the two groups that will be increasingly important in the future.

Word to the wise: The purpose of the "civil rights" movement is to weaken national unity and destroy traditional culture. That has been its purpose since day one, and the actual rights of man per se do not enter into strategic consideration. When the ruling class has to decide between alienating gays, alienating blacks, and alienating hispanics, it will do the first. When this becomes actual policy is difficult to say, since it isn't a straightforward headcount issue.

ivankirigin5• 18 years ago

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.

axod18• 18 years ago

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.

kingkongrevenge13• 18 years ago

> There shouldn't be laws about cultural institutions.

That's a pretty shaky assertion. I doubt there's a society in human history that didn't treat cultural traditions and taboos as law in some form.

Are you for legal incest and sibling marriage?

gaius2• 18 years ago

Well, that's not strictly true. Marriage is different things to different people. The State, the Church, individuals, all have their own meaning.

To the State, marriage is a mechanism for forming binding contracts to create viable economic units for raising small children. All the stuff the State tacks onto it, like tax breaks, are in support of that primary goal.The State does this because it needs a fresh supply of well-raised kids in order to fulfill its responsibilities, which range from schools to manning the military. In the eyes of the State, if you take the benefits of marriage and don't have kids and raise 'em good, you aren't upholding your end of the bargain.

Equal rights for their own sake is a laudable goal, but someone is going to need to articulate to the State what the benefits to the State of gay marriage are. Once that's done, you'll see some progress.

sethg5• 18 years ago

Saying "a same-sex couple should be allowed all the privileges of a married couple, but please don't call it 'marriage'" is like saying "a woman should be allowed to attend medical school and receive a degree and be licensed to see patients and prescribe medicine and collect insurance reimbursements, but please don't call her a 'doctor'".

axod18• 18 years ago

No, it's not. Female doctors can carry out the same tasks as Male doctors (Give or take).

Gay couples cannot carry out the same tasks as Heterosexual couples.

josefresco2• 18 years ago

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

fallentimes2• 18 years ago

And there's much better ganja anyway

sethg5• 18 years ago

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

Allocator2008• 18 years ago

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.) :-)

ivankirigin5• 18 years ago

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• 18 years ago

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

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

geebee4• 18 years ago

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.

aaronblohowiak4• 18 years ago

" 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.

geebee4• 18 years ago

"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!)

jorgeortiz85• 18 years ago

This issue is at the heart of the petition against enacting Prop8 that was brought before the California Supreme Court.

The California Constitution distinguishes between "amendments" and "revisions" to the Constitution. Amendments can be used to clarify the Constitution and require a 50%+1 vote. Revisions are necessary for far-reaching changes to the Constitution and need a 2/3 vote in the state Legislature followed by a 50%+1 referendum vote.

The argument is that if mere amendments can be used by the majority to deny civil rights to a minority group, it would render the Equal Protection clause ineffective (a far-reaching change), which would require it to go through a "revision" process and not just an "amendment" process.

nostrademons• 18 years ago

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.

parenthesis• 18 years ago

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).

dhbradshaw2• 18 years ago

That makes a lot of sense. It's like a natural continuation of the separation between church and state.

astine2• 18 years ago

Yes, a clear distinction between the two is necessary before talking can even begin between the two sides. Once that happens, then we can do this right.

However, there is still the linguistic problem: do we still call both forms 'marriage,' or do we restrict the term only to the former? Either way, we're going to upset somebody. I don't think anyone would be willing to use the monikers 'marriage1' and 'marriage2.'

enomar• 18 years ago

Sometimes you have to upset someone to do the right thing.

I'm sure slave owners were upset when we abolished slavery, but we did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

dhbradshaw2• 18 years ago

Once the legal separation between civil and religious marriage is properly made, the semantic issue automatically becomes less contentious because of the differences between religious groups. That is, marriage1 will no longer mean just marriage between one man and one woman because there will be plenty of churches that will allow other combinations. Marriage2 will become the basis of the laws in society, and Marriage1 will become specific to each church. Instead of saying Marriage1, one might say Catholic marriage or Shiite marriage.

tlrobinson• 18 years ago

I think the government one should call it "civil unions" (or whatever) for everyone, and the churches can call it whatever they want. Gay people can still get "married" if they belong to a religious institution that "marries" gay couples; same with heterosexual couples.

Some gay people I know say they don't really care what it's called as long as they get the exact same rights. Of course others may disagree.

But then there's non-religious people who want to be married without the religious aspect. "civil union" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. That could be a problem.

How about "marriage" and "marriage~" ("marriage prime")?

yters11• 18 years ago

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.

rms• 18 years ago

>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction.

That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal.

Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes?

At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia.

You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?

yters11• 18 years ago

The best way you can explain things to me is to anonymously downmod my post. That way I'm not distracted by arguments and evidence, and instead can get in line with the groupthink.

Thank you, anonymous downmodders.

ingenium2• 18 years ago

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.

mattmaroon2• 18 years ago

That's largely what existed in Cali previously (minus the group thing unfortunately). That wasn't good enough for 52% of the population.

They seem to care about the semantics more than anything else.

RobertL• 18 years ago

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

DaniFong2• 18 years ago

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).

psyklic• 18 years ago

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!

sanj4• 18 years ago

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.

Attention, Startups: Move to New England. Your Gay Employees Will Thank You.

Related Stories