A man I know was a top executive at a major American media company, one of the biggest and most influential in the world. A young man came into his office one day asking to display a rainbow sticker with the words “safe space.” This was a decade ago and this man, a faithful Catholic, felt confident he could demur without reprisal though he could see the veiled threat of being “outed” as less than gay friendly, as a homophobe.
But, in these post-Brendan Eich days, it is doubtful my friend would feel as safe to say no because things have gotten exponentially worse since then. Last week more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that would impose same-sex “marriage” on the whole country. These corporations would impose faux marriage on the 60 percent of the population in 34 states who have voted to enshrine true marriage in their constitutions.
For friends of true marriage, corporations are the enemy. They signed up with the sexual left long ago.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
The corporations’ arguments in the amicus brief are mostly economic. Their interest is “to attract and retain a talented workforce.” The dual regime whereby some states recognize true marriage while others recognize faux marriage “creates legal uncertainty and imposes unnecessary costs” and requires them to treat employees differently by where they reside.
They say that talented people are hard to find and keep in states that recognize only true marriage. True marriage violates their “principles of diversity and inclusion.” Imposing faux marriage on the country would “reduce current costs, administrative burden, and diversion of resources from our core businesses.”
The corporations quote specious arguments from recent court decisions. The 9th Circuit, which overturned the Idaho marriage laws, wrote this, “When we integrated our schools, education improved. When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital. When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion.”
Really? Not that there shouldn’t be non-segregated schools, but does anyone really believe education has improved from the 1950s to today? They argue that open LGBTs in the military have led to greater unit cohesion? The 9th Circuit didn’t offer any proof of that claim. But these are typical of the kinds of empty arguments made by the sexual left in marriage cases.
The corporations cite a handful of studies proving that diversity is important. Forbes Insights surveyed 320 diversity officers in major corporations that showed, no surprise, that diversity officers say diversity is important. Another one from Australia showed the same thing. But both studies are mostly about sex and racial diversity. The Australian study, for instance, mentions sexual orientation only once.
The corporations’ amicus brief insists, “A diverse, inclusive workplace environment increases the total human energy available to the organization. People can bring far more of themselves to their jobs because they are required to suppress far less.”
If corporations are concerned about employees “suppressing far less,” then they must have a concern for the faithful Christian who is afraid to let anyone know she is Christian? The reality is quite different. She must suppress her Christianity, otherwise she may hear, “So, you’re a Christian? But you must be gay-supportive, right? Huh? Huh? Huh?” Her choice at that moment is to lie or to tell the truth and lose her job.
These big corporations say, “Companies that are diverse and inclusive obtain better profits and other outputs….” They likely added “other outputs” because the sentence is otherwise false or not provable. How to explain Exxon Mobil, for instance, which scores the absolute lowest in the annual ranking of gay-friendly corporations listed by the anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign. Even so, Exxon Mobil is one of the most profitable corporations the world has ever known, making profits north of $45 billion a year, that’s profits not sales.
One study cited in the brief asserts companies that ignore the “pink dollar”—estimated at $845 billion—do so at their own peril. According to the study, corporations find “pink dollar consumers attractive because, on average, homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be part of a no-dependent households.” Well, that’s a good Constitutional reason to support same-sex “marriage.”
Corporate profits are not the only economic arguments same-sex “marriage” advocates have made. They’ve claimed same-sex “marriage” will increase the economic growth of the states that allow it.
The US Department of State hosted an interview with the research director of UCLA’s Williams Institute, who said the economic benefit of gay weddings in Massachusetts was $111 million over five years, a whopping $22 million a year.
These arguments are not new. They’ve been made since the dawn of the marriage debates. Twenty-five business leaders wrote to the New York General Assembly saying, “In an age where talent determines the economic winners, great states and cities must demonstrate a commitment to creating an open, healthy and equitable environment in which to live and work. As other states, cities and counties across the world extend marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit the best talent if New York cannot offer the same benefits and protections.” They really do expect us to believe that gays will all of a sudden leave Manhattan for St Louis if Missouri allows gay marriage and New York does not.
In a 2012 study the National Organization for Marriage identified 30 true marriage states and six faux marriage states and then judged them by ten factors including CEO rankings of the states, GDP, unemployment rates, domestic migration, public employment, tax burden, middle-class job growth, overall job growth, and per capita income.
What they found was that in six measurements—CEO grading, domestic migration, public employment, middle-class job growth, overall job growth, and income growth—“none of the six states with gay marriage appeared in the list of top states.” What’s more,
States with gay marriage make up twelve percent of the total states but make up thirty percent of the bottom states in four indicators (CEO grading, domestic migration, public employment and tax burden) of the five which included low rankings. One state with same-sex marriage (New Hampshire) is counted among the states with the lowest tax burden. On a more positive note, states with same-sex marriage are disproportionately represented in the top states in GDP growth and on the list of enterprising states (twenty percent). Same-sex marriage states make up thirty percent of the states with the best rates of unemployment.
The bottom line is that the assertion that faux marriage is needed for corporation profits and economic growth is as phony as any marriage license issued to Adam and Steve and major corporations and the Supreme Court are about to lie to the American people.
What we know is this: Corporations have been taken over by the sexual left and Christian employees among them are on notice. Do not let anyone know you are a Christian. Do not let it be known on Facebook, or Twitter, or over coffee in the lunchroom. Sexual leftists are after you and they will get you if it’s the last thing they do.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be remarkable if a sizeable number of corporate employees let it be known in each company who they are and what they believe and let the consequences happen?
Do you remember Chick-Fil-A Day and all those long lines of Christians standing up for the principle of free speech and Biblical marriage? Remember how amazing that was and how the LGBT lobby was weeping copiously over their blog posts? They were in full panic mode. They had no idea we were so big. They had heard rumors of us but never seen us with their own eyes quite like that.
And here’s a warning for the big corporations, the political and media elites, and the LGBT lobby. Imposing faux marriage from on high is a profoundly bad idea. What you want is agreement, not coercion, and certainly not coercion of conscience, which is what’s happening now and will only get worse if the Supreme Court agrees with you. Such a thing can only work out badly for you and for us.
(Photo credit: AFP Photo / Yasuyoshi Chiba)