Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?

Anton N. Marco

Copyright 1996-2006, Christian Leadership Ministries


Appendix B:
"Gay Rights" and Multinational Business:
A New "Marriage of Convenience"?

In a striking business development, actions by major "multinational" corporations to include "domestic partners" of gays and lesbians in employee benefits schemes have become increasingly common in recent years. Even formerly conservative Walt Disney Enterprises has now "restructured" benefits in this way.

One sees few non-multinational corporations and almost no small businesses taking such steps, however, from which one may conclude either that (1) multi-national corporations posess size and strength non-multinationals and small businesses simply do not, which enable these "megabusinesses" to absorb the increased overhead of including gay and lesbian "life partners" in benefit structures; or (2) multinationals may have particular, more important interests in making these changes also not shared by non-multinationals and smaller businesses.

"Gay rights" opponents have puzzled for years over multinationals' readiness to encourage gay lifestyles and promote gay employees in their ranks, but the perplexity may well dissolve as we consider the second explanation above.

Jonathan Malmude, Ph.D., History Department Chair at St. Joseph's College, Windham, Maine, has written about the effects of federal mandates and comprehensive planning on sex roles and family structures in the United States:{257}

For better or for worse, U.S. families are closely tied to sex-role and family-life issues like the legal status of marriage; the development of school-based gay counseling for teen-age lesbians, homosexuals, and other young people interested in gay issues; the growth of same-sex marriages, so-called; the commercialization of abortion through the "harvesting" of fetal tissues from late-term abortions; the inschool indoctrination of children toward the acceptance of bisexual and homosexual acts as natural and recreational; and the flexible redefinition of families to include all kinds of intentional groupings.

If the definition of marriage and the family were to be radically broadened, and the dominance of the heterosexually-based family were deconstructed... this could set the stage for some dramatic economic changes. If powerful foundations and banking institutions were to support the continued weakening of the heterosexually-based family unit, then a movement toward a "society of singles" might occur. Adults might then cluster in "intentional communes" ["families we choose"?] fashioned out of "family fragments," i.e., from singles not related by ties of blood, while their children would be gathered into creche-like magnet boarding schools -- training grounds for Corporate America's human resources of the twenty-first century. The parents, too, might prove to be excellent human resources, since they would not be rooted in the family or in the community. They could become a supremely flexible workforce.

[Government-][m]andate-driven comprehensive planning is creating networks of EDD's, i.e., economic development districts, in which businesses are being obliged to come under the regulatory authority of EDC's, i.e., economic development councils, which have the power to pressure businesses operating within their boundaries into an uneasy "partnership" with the economic development district....

EDD's could make optimum use of the new, rootless, "society of singles" by sending workers out to district firms on short-term temporary assignments -- just as temporary agencies now do -- or make labor-transfer agreements with other EDD's nationwide, NAFTA-wide, and even world-wide. Meanwhile, the children of these rootless ones could be taught multiculturalism, "sexual diversity," and be mentored by their teacher-guides at their creche-like residential schools.

A widening of the definition of marriage and the family, and the deconstruction of the heterosexual nuclear family, could alternatively evolve toward the development of a new type of "family life" (rather than toward the formation of a "society of singles"). As homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable, many individuals who are not deeply homosexual might nevertheless slip into a transient bisexual mode, as sometimes happens with prison inmates, and cluster together into bisexual rings of adults living in the same household, producing offspring for collective rearing by rings of moms, dads, and "uncles" and "aunts."{258}

According to Malmude, government-mandated EDD's and EDC's already work hand-in-hand with non-governmental activists to press for radical social change:

The reason for this affinity of comprehensive planning for political correctness goes deeper than the opportunism of empire-building [government] administrators. Comprehensive planning is mandated through legislation which allows agencies to impose the planning requirements on categories of people. The legislative mandates which create comprehensive plans require activist support.

Activism in the United States and abroad is becoming more organized, permanent and institutionalized. It resembles the bureaucratic process of comprehensive planning itself. Activist NGO's, i.e., non-governmental organizations, function as popularizers, bush-beaters, and choreographers of the comprehensive planning process. Such organizational actors are themselves serviced by tax-deductible foundations. These are in the business of developing intellectual legitimacy for planning concepts and initiatives.

Foundations drum up academic support for social restucturing and control initiatives, which eventually become incorporated in mandated comprehensive plans....{259}

Government also takes a hand in funding these kinds of "initiatives," mostly unbeknownst to the public, but with generous infusions of taxpayers' money:

American taxpayers paid more than a third of the estimated $14 million cost of convening last year's U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, according to a congressional audit.

The Clinton administration spent $4.8 million in direct costs for the feminist conference and a parallel forum of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), plus $1.1 million for U.N. expenses, the General Accounting Office reported....

The Agency for International Development (USAID) spent $2.4 million to plan and support the Beijing conference, including $617,906 to pay travel expenses for foreign delegates and NGO representatives from 39 other countries.

The GAO reported a $30,000 administration grant to Bella Abzug's Women's Environmental Development Organization, which promoted a pro-homosexual rights and pro-choice agenda through its Women's Linkage Caucus.{260}

At this international conference...

...[C]onservative groups... waged a three week battle... against liberal feminist and homosexual agendas...

Conservative groups... say they are dissatisfied with a 259-page draft conference platform -- particularly its only paragraph on the family.

The section, still open for revision, states: "The family is the basic unit of society. It is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support. In different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist."

Homosexual activist groups at preparatory conference meetings in New York interpreted "various forms of the family" to sanction same-sex liaisons in the context of housing policies, said Susana Garcia-Robles of the National Institute of Womanhood.{261}

Numerous gay, lesbian and bisexual "workshops" were conducted at the conference, including one dealing with "lesbian flirting."

In any event, whether American "family life" may be moving toward something like Malmude's "society of singles," or toward what he calls "newfamilies," or toward what gay activities have called "families we choose," or a combination of all three, (1) it appears that government (or at least the Clinton administration) supports such moves, and (2) gay activists are optimally positioned, by "virtue" of most activists� redefinitions of marriage and family, and of their considerable academic writing about and social experimentation with "families we choose," to move in either direction. Gay activist social goals certainly fit hand-in-glove with the "emerging mandate society" Malmude forsees.

But still other factors may serve to make internal "gay rights"-promotion an attractive proposition to multinational corporations.

In older, more nationalistic ages past, military and intelligence authorities customarily believed that homosexuals were "poor security risks." The very well-documented promiscuity and relational instability we have already remarked on, plus the possibility of blackmail and a certain "sense of alienation" from whatever dominant culture they were native to, supposedly made homosexuals more vulnerable and "turnable" to treason than heterosexuals by those involved in international "cloak-and-dagger" endeavors.

But in a world of collapsing national barriers, of international-scale finance and business, multinational corporations may well now regard as unique assets some of those traits in gays previously considered to be liabilities.

In large segments of America's gay/lesbian population, we observe high degrees of affluence and educational achievement, mobility, upper-class-bred sociability and political influence, coupled with love of and experience in travel -- but few ties to "traditional" families, long-term "monogamous" relationships or, in most cases, children.

Gays and lesbians may well represent to multinational corporations an extraordinarily-prepared, potential "super-executive pool," consisting of globe-trotting individuals who can far more readily move around an international business-and-trade "chessboard" than many heterosexuals, who seem to forge stronger ties to both blood families and nations.

Ensure gays' and lesbians' loyalty to the corporation and its management, demand no other loyalties (including to nation of origin), give gays and lesbians full social, business and "benefit" acceptance, and their contributions to the advancement and profit structures of international business may well make "gay rights"-style promotion in the international corporate world worth every bit of additional overhead that might be involved.

Of course, this explanation of multinationals' "marriage of convenience" with gays and lesbians is at this juncture strictly pure conjecture on americans for Reason and Justice�s part. But it seems to make a certain pragmatic sense and also seems to answer more questions raised about the possible reasons for multinational corporations' entente with gay activism than does assuming that "megabusiness" interests have succumbed to sudden attacks of either "political correctness" or special human affection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.


{257}Malmude, "The Emerging Mandate Society: Implications for Sex Roles and Family Life," The Social Justice Review, Vol. 85, May-June 1994, No. 5-6, pp.71-74.

{258}Ibid. p. 73.

{259}Ibid. pp. 72-73.

{260}"U.S. picks up private, U.N. tabs for feminist parley," The Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, Vol. 3, No. 23, June 9, 1996, pp. 1, 15.

{261}Op. cit., The Washington Times, June 9, 1996, "Family issues kept in closet at U.N. meet," p. 9.

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]