I disagree with your implication, destor, that there's much PR benefit. See Susanne Craig at Dealbook:

Although he has long supported same-sex marriage, his move could be seen as a public relations play, albeit one with unclear results. The affiliation with a liberal organization could also alienate conservatives who do business with the firm.

Through a spokesman, Mr. Blankfein declined to comment.

Paul A. Argenti, a professor of corporate communication at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, says Mr. Blankfein’s decision isn’t likely to have any positive impact on the reputation of the firm — or Mr. Blankfein.

“If you are a Goldman employee and you are gay or contemplating coming out, this is great,” he said. But for Goldman and Mr. Blankfein, the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with what Goldman Sachs does. “If Mr. Blankfein was taking a radical stand on pay you could say wow, that’s big. But equality is simply not an issue you associate with Goldman.”

Still, the campaign is sure to turn heads on Wall Street, which despite having made progress on equality issues over the last decade, is still considered to be a male-dominated, testosterone-driven place.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Blankfein has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage. Last year, he signed a letter urging state lawmakers to vote for a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and encouraged other chief executives to do the same. He also called lawmakers directly on the matter. The New York Legislature passed the law last summer.

Under Mr. Blankfein’s guidance, Goldman has also pushed employment policies that promote equality

First, the big social wedge issues are virtually always a wash that way, if you come out advocating one side or another, you win some people, you lose others, that's why they are a wedge.

And he's long been an advocate. Looks to me that it's more like he's long felt strongly about this, and has worked to support it, and feels he has the luxury of having the company he runs support it in certain ways, too. It's more like this: we're so damn successful that we can afford to piss some people off on this wedge issue, we don't give a damn if it does. He has made the decision that he's not going to keep his support low key, but now going to let his company be painted as socially liberal on this, good/bad consequences be damned.

There's a lot of ironies in the political culture wars world. You've got some lefties and some righties who see Goldman Sachs as the personification of teh evil Wall Street, and also see Goldman as  certified*friends of Barack Obama* ( After which the leap for many of those folks becomes: the evil Wall Street = Obama administration.) But Obama has long twisted himself in knots to make sure he comes down on no side of this particular wedge issue, going all the way back to the Donnie McClurkin commotion early in his presidential campaign.

I think you are showing some of that famous coastal bias yourself. You are thinking of most of the one percenters out there as supportive coastal types. Rich people can be socially conservative, too.