State Sees Economics of Gay Marriage
Senate to vote on repeal of 1913 ban on out-of-staters
Boston Globe
By Eric Moskowitz
July 15, 2008
Morality, personal liberty, and constitutional law have been the usual
battlegrounds in the fight over gay marriage. Now Governor Deval Patrick's
administration is injecting something a bit more pedestrian to the debate:
economic development.
A study conducted for the state's Executive Office of Housing and Economic
Development predicts that an economic boomlet in hotel bookings, banquets, and
wedding cakes would result from repealing a 1913 state law that prevents gay and
lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
Consider these numbers: An estimated 32,200 same-sex couples from elsewhere
would travel to the state to get married over the next three years. That would
pump $111 million into the economy and yield another $5 million in marriage
license fees and sales and occupancy taxes.
Those estimates were produced by the Williams Institute, a nonprofit
organization at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law that
studies policies, including economic issues, relating to sexual orientation.
The estimates were touted by advocates yesterday on the eve of an expected
vote on a Senate bill that would repeal the 1913 law.
"There will be couples who will throw huge weddings in Massachusetts, and
there will be couples who just pop into the state, get their license, and
leave," said R. Bradley Spears, executive director of the Williams Institute.
Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who is championing the issue in the state Senate,
said she is "extremely optimistic" that the repeal bill will pass today and
proceed to the House, where advocates are also optimistic about approval.
Wilkerson said she is not expecting a heated debate, despite the volatility of
the gay marriage issue on Beacon Hill for the last several years.
Outside the State House, however, opponents say they are not giving up the
fight. They said they object to the notion that lawmakers might consider
boosting tourism revenues when voting.
"I think that's a detestable justification for repealing the 1913 law,
because what we're doing is infringing blatantly on the rights of other states
to determine the requirements for marriage," said Kris Mineau, president of the
Massachusetts Family Institute. "To say that we're doing this for economic gain,
I believe, is truly an abuse of . . . the Constitution."
He said his organization has been lobbying legislators to save the law, which
prevents out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage
would be prohibited in their home state.
But pressed to name one senator who has responded favorably to his campaign,
Mineau declined to cite a name.
"We're working behind the scenes with the senators, and we're not at liberty
right now to put a bull's-eye on them," he said.
Advocates said the Williams Institute study showed that a repeal would not
only expand individual rights but would also be good for the economy.
"It's rare when doing the right thing and economic benefits go so closely
hand-in-hand," said Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a
coalition advocating same-sex marriage rights.
Wilkerson said that, as an African-American woman, she is proud to support
the repeal of the 1913 law, because it originated when lawmakers in many states
were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry.
The law fell into obscurity, but remained on the books until 2004, when
Governor Mitt Romney, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, invoked it to
prevent out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying here and forcing
their home states to consider recognizing Massachusetts marriage law, which
began licensing same-sex marriages in 2004.
Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi support
repealing the law, as does the current governor.
"If that bill comes to me, I will sign it and sign it proudly," Patrick said
yesterday.
The study, prepared at no expense to Massachusetts taxpayers, is one of
several the Williams Institute has completed for states considering same-sex
marriage and civil union laws.
The study considered a host of factors, including the percentage (roughly
half) of the 22,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples counted by the US Census
Bureau who have married here already, the typical expenditures for tourists
visiting the state for two days and one night, and the likelihood that most
same-sex New Yorkers wishing to marry - given that Governor David Paterson in
May directed all state agencies there to recognize same-sex marriages performed
in other states - would travel to Massachusetts, not California, for their vows.
The authors consider their estimates conservative because they estimated only
the spending on tourism and wedding expenses for the couples themselves, not for
guests, and because they estimated the typical celebration expense at $2,962,
one-tenth of what a typical wedding in the United States costs.
