As South Dakotans squeal in delight at the surprise announcement of Elton John's first ever concert appearance in our fair state, it behooves us to remind the fabulous Sir Elton that at least 172,305 South Dakota voters will not be welcoming his spouse David Furnish. Yes, in case you've forgotten, the Rocket Man is gay (for you old-timers, he's just like Liberace), and in December 2005, he married his gay partner. Last November, 172,305 South Dakotans, 51.83% of the participating electorate, amended the state constitution to define marriage as man and wife and deny validity or recognition to any "civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship" (see SD Constitution, Article 21, Section 9).
Sir Elton probably doesn't face any fines or jail time if he brings his spouse along to the Sioux Falls gig, and this writer would hate for the happy couple to pass on visiting Falls Park or other local highlights just because of one silly little bigoted constitutional clause. It is encouraging that neither Sir Elton nor the good folks at the Sioux Falls Arena will let politics stand in the way of making a buck...
...which got me thinking: In the 1880s, Sioux Falls, along with Fargo, became known as a nationwide "divorce capital," thanks to "a 90-day residency law and lax oversight on the part of local judges concerning sworn testimony" ["History of Sioux Falls, South Dakota," Wikipedia]. Dakota Territory needed residents, and we couldn't afford to stanch population and economic growth with little things like prudery. Like Las Vegas, Sioux Falls built its original economic vitality by easing its moral strictures just a little and thus drawing thousands of tourists (and maybe some new residents) seeking relief from the more judgmental rules they ran into back home.
Fast forward to today: A Polk County judge throws out Iowa's gay-marriage ban, and the Polk County Recorder gets 20 applications for same-sex marriages in one day (before the county attorney tells her to stop and wait until after he appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court). There's all sorts of demand out there for gay marriage, civil unions, and other officially recognized quasi-marital relationship. Hmmm... are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Yes! Let's repeal Article 21.9 and open our doors to everyone, gay or straight, who wants to get married. Think of the economic benefits: If South Dakota recognized gay marriage, big-time celebs could save a bundle by having their swanky wedding/union/quasi-marital-relationship-solemnification parties here instead of in merrye olde Englande or other spendy places. Imagine if Sir Elton and David had brought their wedding party and all their posh friends (Victoria Beckham! Liz Hurley! Ringo Starr!) to Sioux Falls or Madison or the Sylvan Lake Lodge -- oh! the glamour! the fun! the money we could make! Flowers, decorations, catering, champagne, live bands, hotel rooms... the profits are there for the taking by a state with one eye on tolerance and the other on economic development.
Oh, and did I mention tolerance and economic development go hand in hand? Various studies have found a correlation between tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality and specific positive economic factors like ability to attract foreign investment and high-technology activity [see Marcus Noland, Peterson Institute for International Economics, "Tolerance Can Lead to Prosperity," Financial Times, 2004.08.14, reprinted at IIE.com]. Noland points out that tolerance for homosexuality often correlates with tolerance of immigrants and tolerance of difference in general, which is essential in a world where economic innovation requires thinking differently. [If anyone can cite concrete harms from gay marriage to weigh against these potential economic benefits, fire away... but do include sources, please!]
Maybe throwing open the chapel and courthouse doors for gay couples seeking marriage licenses is too high a price for some South Dakotans to pay for economic development. But it's nice to know the city of Sioux Falls is staying true to its roots in non-judgmental hospitality and will welcome a high-profile partner in a gay marriage to generate some sales and tax revenue.
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
Personally, I'm more of a Bruce Springsteen fan than I am of Sir Elton. So I think I'm going to save my money to see him in St. Paul in November.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Cory, you gotta listen to "The Boss's" new single "Radio Nowhere"... it is AWESOME!
If Elton falls off the stage and ends up in a coma I hope he has a back-up medical power of attorney in place since his partner won't even be allowed to visit the ICU. Family only, you know. Nice goin' SD voters. What is it you accomplished again?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't all of the voters in South Dakota. 48% of us voted against the amendment (making SD's the second-most successful effort against a marriage ban in history).
ReplyDeleteYou, me, and 160,150 others, Ang! Keep the faith!
ReplyDeleteGood grief. This is a concert. Elton John would be coming to put on a show, simple. He could be gay, straight, sad, or bent. What has that got to do with the fact that SD didn't favor legalizing gay marriage? Nice try, but two entirely separate issues.
ReplyDeleteOh, Nonnie, everything's related to everything else, in one big Circle of Life... ;-)
ReplyDeleteOh for the love of Yahweh!
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess you could say that, Cory. Does that make us cousins a hundred or so times removed?! Welcome to the family in that case, and we have a great family reunion every three years!!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more of the "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" myself! LOL
ReplyDelete