WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (UPI) -- While heated political, religious and sociological debates take place over the question of same-sex marriage, there has been little discussion of the potential economic benefits resulting from a sudden marriage boom.
Gay activists and some travel and tourism authorities are looking at the possible financial windfall that may result in such states as Massachusetts which may be the first to allow same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in their Goodrich vs. Department of Public Health ruling in November, said that barring same-sex marriages was against the state's constitution.
This ruling is to become law, allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples as early as May 17, 2004.
Wednesday, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said that he does not support same-sex marriages and would be in favor of an amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Economics professor Lee Badgett notes, however, that if same-sex marriage is allowed there would be a marked economic benefit for the state.
"The passage of same-sex marriage into law may bring higher sales tax revenue and income tax revenue from a boost to state spending from in-state same-sex couples, many of who are busily planning weddings and will be using savings," said Badgett. Badgett is an associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.
According to the census, there are over 17,000 same-sex couples that live in Massachusetts. A study released Monday by the IGLSS and co-authored by Badgett reports that approximately 8,500 same-sex couples who live in the state will marry over the next five years -- provided that this becomes legal.
The IGLSS report also shows that many same-sex partners already have their own health insurance, and the majority of Massachusetts companies will not incur additional costs for new spouses that may become eligible for benefits under the Goodrich decision. That is often one of the concerns raised by those who feel that allowing same-sex couples to marry will be a financial burden.
"In the three states I've looked at (Vt., Calif., and N.J.), the fiscal benefits to the state always far outweighed the fiscal costs of giving marriage-like benefits," said Badgett.
"The average cost of a wedding in Massachusetts is between $20,000 and $24,000," said Gary Gates, a research associate in the Urban Institute's Center on Labor, Human Services and Populations. "I don't see why gay and lesbian couples would be any different from their heterosexual counterparts in this regard."
If the estimated 8,500 couples do marry and spend the average amount for their wedding, the contribution to the state's economy would potentially be substantial.
However, it is not yet clear if out-of-state residents will be able to marry under the Goodrich decision. This brings two possibilities: same sex couples moving into the state in order to receive the marriage benefits, and/or the influx of tourists who come to attend same-sex marriages.
According to the census, there are roughly 576,900 same-sex couples that live outside of Massachusetts.
Though there is no way to determine how many of these couples will marry, the passage of civil unions in Vermont, where 44 percent of same sex couples entered into a civil union, can be used as a benchmark for projections.
According to the Massachusetts Office of Tourism and Travel, the average tourist spending per visit to Massachusetts was $365 with an average stay of 2.2 nights.
However, these numbers don't reflect the amount of money that might be generated by same-sex couples who are visiting in order to get married.
"In Massachusetts couples must file an intention to marry three days before marrying, so both average stay and average spending are too low," said Badgett. "So if the amount spent rises proportionately for a four-day visit, we're looking at roughly $664."
Badgett also notes that this is conservative because couples would likely bring family and friends as well.
"If 44 percent of same-sex couples in the United States decide to marry, Massachusetts is their only option. So, over time, we're looking at roughly $168.5 million in new tourism spending, probably spread over several years. Obviously, that will be lower if some couples can't afford to or don't want to travel to Massachusetts," said Badgett.
"For each travel dollar, MOTT reports that the state gets 4.1 cents in taxes and local governments get 2.4 cents," said Badgett. "So that's an increase to the state coffers of $6.9 million and $4 million to local governments."
These numbers only reflect a conservative estimate on travel expenses alone, not including the $20,000-$24,000 average cost of a wedding.
"In that case, if 44 percent of same-sex couples in the U.S. decide to marry in Massachusetts over the next five years say, that amounts to total expenditures in the neighborhood of $5.7 billion or more than a billion dollars a year," said the Urban Institute's Gates. "That estimate only includes wedding costs, not the travel costs. This is a non-trivial addition to the Massachusetts economy."
While the monetary benefits are clear, many other experts also point to the long-term benefits like the attractiveness of tolerant and inclusive policies as a means to attract more companies to the area, which will further expand the economy.
For communities like Provincetown, Mass., which has had a long history of being "gay friendly," this potential boom will affect the local economy greatly.
"We will become the 'gay Niagara Falls' both a wonderful place to get married and a beautiful location to honeymoon," said Patricia Fitzpatrick, tourism director for the town.
According to Doug Johnstone, the town clerk, they have received an average of three to 10 e-mails or phone calls per day since the Goodrich decision was issued.
"Given the interest, and volume of calls received, we expect that we will be quite busy after the ruling becomes law in May. But just how many additional marriage licenses will be requested is unknown at this time and we will have to wait and see what happens after the ruling becomes law," said Johnstone.
.
