 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||||||||||||
| about us |
Tourism and Same-Sex Marriage By Brad Sears and Lee Badgett Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is flunking a test of statesmanship: the ability to salvage something positive from defeat. Chagrined that the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced his state to become the nation's first to recognize same-sex marriages, Romney acts like a sore loser and poor host: a few weeks ago he announced his intention to enforce an obscure 1913 law (designed to prevent interracial marriage) in order to deny same-sex couples from other states the right to marry in Massachusetts. As soon as gay couples started marrying on May 17, the governor has been busily backing up his threats. After learning from a Boston Globe study that three-fourths of the same-sex couples wed in Provincetown were from out-of-state, he demanded copies of the licenses issued there and in three other communities who openly defied his orders. His bullying worked. By yesterday, all but Provincetown had shut their doors to out-of state couples and that resort town is expected to capitulate any day now. "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," the governor gloomily declared. Gays might take offense at the equation of their marriage and straight couples' divorce, but residents of Massachusetts should find Romney's actions disturbing for a different reason. Easy divorce for heterosexuals has been a boon to Las Vegas' economy, attracting tourists from around the country. Romney's principled stand (if one can so characterize action to deny equal rights to loving couples) will cost Massachusetts dearly. Analysts have long recognized that the first state that extends marriage to same-sex couples would reap a tourism windfall. Some, including Forbes magazine, predict that gay marriage will become a billion-dollar-per-year industry. The tourists and money Romney rejects could have flowed to California. But recently, it also passed on this much-needed injection to the state's economy. In what may prove to be a costly political compromise, the Assembly decided to hold off a year on considering AB 1967, a gay marriage bill. If California permits same-sex marriage, it is clear that gay couples from other states will flock here. During the one month in which San Francisco did so, couples from 46 states and eight countries traveled to the city and spent lavishly. (A Macy's there reportedly ran out of wedding rings.) It's also likely that Massachusetts would be no competition for California in attracting gay marriage tourism, even if Romney wasn't being so inhospitable. California is Americans' top domestic destination and each year generates over 10 times more tourism spending than the Bay State. Particularly from November to March, it is hard to imagine gay newlyweds picking Provincetown over West Hollywood. A recent study conducted by the UCLA School of Law's Williams Project and the Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies estimates that opening marriage to same-sex couples would result in $50 million to $100 million of new tourism business each year for California's stuttering economy. In turn, this would generate increased sales tax revenues of $4 million to $7 million for the state. These estimates take into account that most of out-of state couples' spending will be back home, with only some of the celebrating happening in California. The study also predicts that the weddings of resident same-sex couples will generate millions of dollars of additional new business. This is so even though researchers estimate that gay couples will spend only half the $22,000 that straight couples, on average, spend on achieving marital bliss. It is not that academics think that queer guys will skimp when it comes to their big day, they just cautiously take into account that some have already had commitment ceremonies; some may fear a showy wedding will "out" their sexuality to employers or others; and some have disapproving parents and will be unable to rely on help from the fathers of the brides. They also assume that only half of the money spent will come from these couples' savings. Wedding spending that's merely diverted from the couples' other needs and wants doesn't necessarily generate additional business for the state. Even so, the study predicts that resident same-sex couples will spend over $84 million a year on their weddings, which will generate over $4 million of additional sales tax revenues for the state. Why shouldn't California or Massachusetts lure gay and lesbian newlyweds the way Las Vegas lures divorcing heterosexuals? Given both states' current economic struggles, it seems irresponsible for them to be passing on this golden opportunity. But since they are hesitating, some state should cash in on gay marriage. The key here is being first. For only to the gay marriage winner go the tourism spoils. Sears is executive director of UCLA Law School's Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. Badgett is research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.
| ||||||