Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Affluent Christian Investor | September 20, 2017

Scroll to top


No Comments

Is Gay Marriage Good For Business? The Answer’s Not As Simple As You May Think

Sometimes you just know that you are being subjected to a hard sell. Someone pushes a product at you and they just start rattling off alleged benefits, hoping that one will hit the right button and trigger your impulse to buy. You’ll look younger… cures baldness… lose weight… save money… girls love it… just buy it, will ya? That’s what the recent rash of ‘gay-marriage-is-good-for-business’ announcements is beginning to sound like. Microsoft was the big boy who got this started, pouring millions of dollars into pro-gay marriage initiatives, warning Washington State that a ban on gay marriage would be bad for business because it would hurt with the recruitment of talent.

After last week’s Supreme Court rulings, which were largely victories for advocates of homosexual marriage, a number of major corporations applauded the rulings, many of whom had publicly advocated the shift in public statements and in friend of the court briefs. JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, Apple, Microsoft, Ben and Jerry’s, Google and others were quick to applaud the rulings when they occurred. Now, of course, the CEOs of these companies are free to offer a personal opinion in favor of same sex marriage, but the business advantage arguments seem to be rather a stretch.

One of the most frequently cited arguments is that a pro-same sex marriage ruling would cut down on paperwork. But the problems with this are numerous. First of all, in a situation where some states have same sex marriages and some don’t, it seems like a new marriage category adds to the paperwork. So, the argument only applies to a ruling which forces same sex marriage on all the states, which was not one of the real world scenarios which were addressed before the courts.

In addition, the effect of expanding the legal definition of marriage to include same sex-couples, is to immediately expand the number of people to whom expensive health insurance benefits are entitled. These companies are gigantic, with extremely high economies of scale in their human resources department. They are very efficient when it comes to the handling of paperwork and same-sex marriage will save them very little money in extra paperwork at the time of hiring. And it will cost them substantially more to be forced to pay an additional dependent’s health care benefits during the whole period in which they are employed by Microsoft.

If same sex marriage benefits are, on net, a cost to these businesses, then it is not proper for these companies to expend shareholder resources, including name and brand, on something which represents a personal view of the management which has not been subjected to shareholder approval. A CEO can make a personal statement, hire his own personal lawyer to write an amicus brief, and his own personal publicist to release press statements, and leave shareholder resources for shareholder purposes. Do Wall Street firms, in these volatile times, really need to be focusing management attention on the current cause celebre?

Another touted benefit to gay marriage is the increased ability to recruit and retain talent.

Recently, the former CEO of BP, Lord Browne, called for Britain to embrace homosexual marriage because he says it is good for business. He says that countries which change the definition of marriage to include homosexual relations will have an advantage over those which keep the historic definition.

But no evidence has been presented to justify this point. Browne gives one and only one anecdotal example to justify this sweeping and unprecedented shift in law. But the logic seems somewhat flawed no matter how many examples are given. U.S. and U.K. growth rates were at their highest during an historic period in which the legal hostility to homosexuality was far more intense than it is any place in the modern world.

If there is some mysterious relationship between legal neutrality on the matter of homosexuality and prosperity why have we not seen it before? Did we see flows of talent to Weimar Germany during the sexually egalitarian 1920s? Did economic know-how flood into France after 1789 when the revolutionary allies of the Marquis De Sade upended the social system? Where precisely do we find this in history?

The fact is that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, tend to go to places where the wages are highest and jobs are most plentiful. Yes, of course, open persecution is a strong disincentive, but open persecution is not what America is debating right now, nor has it been since the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in (high growth, by the way) states like Georgia and Texas.

During recent decades we’ve seen the sexual revolution make enormous progress in European countries primarily. Given the gay-means-growth theory, we’d expect them to be outperforming sexually regressive countries like the United States, but they aren’t. Quite to the contrary, the sexually liberated states of Europe have drifted further towards socialism.

The real threat to talent attraction in Europe is the recent waves of price controls on management salaries. Interestingly enough, those proposals have tended to come from the same nations which have pushed the sexual liberation envelope. If talent retention were really such a high priority that it can be used to upend several thousand years of moral consensus, then it should not be easily discarded when the mob decides to punish business.

But what if it turns out that people really do decide where to live and work based on sexual identity politics? Then there is no particular reason to assume that this cuts in favor of the homosexual side. Homosexuals, after all, are a small percentage of the population: 2-3% by most serious estimates. On the other hand, when one adds up Mormons, evangelicals, traditional Roman Catholics and Orthodox Jews, that’s roughly half of the population. Aren’t they talented, too?

One man’s culture of ‘marriage equality’ (to use an advocate’s buzz phrase) is another man’s rejection of the Bible and millennia of human tradition. I can tell you that Christians and Orthodox Jews are expressing very grave concerns about the tone of anger directed at them in this current climate. Maybe business leaders need to start thinking about how to attract their talents, too.


Article originally published on

Jerry Bowyer is a Forbes contributor, contributing editor of, and Senior Fellow in Business Economics at The Center for Cultural Leadership.

Jerry has compiled an impressive record as a leading thinker in finance and economics. He worked as an auditor and a tax consultant with Arthur Anderson, as Vice President of the Beechwood Company which is the family office associated with Federated Investors, and has consulted in various privatization efforts for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. He founded the influential economic think tank, the Allegheny Institute, and has lectured extensively at universities, businesses and civic groups.

Jerry has been a member of three investment committees, among which is Benchmark Financial, Pittsburgh’s largest financial services firm. Jerry had been a regular commentator on Fox Business News and Fox News. He was formerly a CNBC Contributor, has guest-hosted “The Kudlow Report”, and has written for, National Review Online, and The Wall Street Journal, as well as many other publications. He is the author of The Bush Boom and more recently The Free Market Capitalist’s Survival Guide, published by HarperCollins. Jerry is the President of Bowyer Research.

Jerry consulted extensively with the Bush White House on matters pertaining to the recent economic crisis. He has been quoted in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, The International Herald Tribune and various local newspapers. He has been a contributing editor of National Review Online, The New York Sun and Townhall Magazine. Jerry has hosted daily radio and TV programs and was one of the founding members of WQED’s On-Q Friday Roundtable. He has guest-hosted the Bill Bennett radio program as well as radio programs in Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles.

Jerry is the former host of WorldView, a nationally syndicated Sunday-morning political talk show created on the model of Meet The Press. On WorldView, Jerry interviewed distinguished guests including the Vice President, Treasury Secretary, HUD Secretary, former Secretary of Sate Condoleezza Rice, former Presidential Advisor Carl Rove, former Attorney General Edwin Meese and publisher Steve Forbes.

Jerry has taught social ethics at Ottawa Theological Hall, public policy at Saint Vincent’s College, and guest lectured at Carnegie Mellon’s graduate Heinz School of Public Policy. In 1997 Jerry gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Robert Morris University. He was the youngest speaker in the history of the school, and the school received more requests for transcripts of Jerry’s speech than at any other time in its 120-year history.

Jerry lives in Pennsylvania with his wife, Susan, and the youngest five of their seven children.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

The Affluent Mix

Become An Insider!

Sign up for Affluent Investor's free email newsletter and receive a free copy of our report, "How the Trump Impeachment Crusade Costs you Money ."

Send this to a friend