Monday, February 6, 2012

Goldman's Blankfein to Speak Out for Same-Sex Marriage

NYT reports:
Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, is stepping onto a prominent and politically charged stage.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief of Goldman Sachs who has become a lightning rod for Wall Street critics, might seem an unlikely advocate for same-sex marriage. But his credentials — a public figure in a conservative industry — could make him a powerful voice for that cause.

The Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, has persuaded Mr. Blankfein to be its first national corporate spokesman for same-sex marriage, an issue that will come up for a legislative vote in several states this year, including Washington and Maryland. Fred Sainz, an executive with the Human Rights Campaign, said the organization sought Mr. Blankfein, in part, because he is “an unexpected messenger."
Since he knows more about getting government involved in the f'ing of people than almost anyone else, I see the fit.


  1. The libertarian quote of the century. We have 88 years to beat it, but I have no doubt it will end up on the podium.

  2. On-deck...

    Government moves from intruding on who can get married to who is allowed to be your friend. There is no off-limits when it comes to the State.

  3. Same sex marriage, to put it mildly, is a hoax.
    Oh, that's right. They aren't going to marry one of their parents or one or more of their siblings of either the same or the other gender.
    It must be OK then.

  4. Mr. Wenzel, no doubt you have a lot of gay readers and fans like me. People who work hard, support the same freedom-based policies that you do, and live our lives productively and in peace. In the society we all advocate, we would have no quarrel with one another ... so what does this little bit o' poison accomplish for you or your readers? I'll remember it the next time I have the opportunity to recommend your blog.

    For the record, the feds shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but if they are going to be, it isn't right to prevent me peaceably assembling in the same type arrangements that allow standard planning of medical visitation/decisionmaking, tax and estate planning, etc. Also for the record, my 10-year relationship is far stronger than many of the straight marriages you are presumably defending.

    Please just spare us this destructive nonsense. Let's win the war for individual freedom first and then you can go back to being resentful bigots without fear that your lives might come into contact with peaceful, productive individuals who just happen to not be exactly like you.

    1. 1149 anon... What is wrong with what he said? I completely support every individuals right to live their lives. He just said Blankfein is used to have the government get involved with the F'ng of people. And the government getting involved in saying who can marry who is the govt getting involved with the f'ng of people. I agree with you "the gov shouldn't be involved in the marriage business at all" I think it was a pretty brilliant joke actually. It doesn't make a claim that blankfein is wrong and every individual shouldn't be treated equally. Am I missing something?

    2. Your putting denial of gay marriage in terms of 'bigotry' makes it clear that you have no tolerance for those who have a differing point of view. I have no problem with people marrying whomever. My problem is with people who insist that I must agree with them, and would use government to force me to agree with them. Is that your idea of individual liberty? It's not mine.

    3. Very well put, Mr. Johnson.

      For that matter
      1. I am surprised the other contemporary smears did not make an appearance, such as homophobic. . . .
      2. It would seem to me that heterosexual incest and polygamy would be up for legalization before homosexual marriage. I mean we're talking about equal rights, right? and everybody knows that heterosexuals have more "rights" than homosexuals these days. Funny how that works in reality - not that anybody pays attention.

  5. How coy, to make a platinum member of the 1% an advocate for an issue that is probably very high on the list of causes of the Occupy people. What a terrible quandary it puts them in.

  6. Some people need to get over listening to someone because of their wealth. What they say doesn't matter as much as what they do without government coersion.