By Gary J. Gates
txt newsmagazine
November 4, 2005

The framework of the current debate in Texas regarding Proposition 2, the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and all other forms of gay unions, most often draws on perspectives rooted in civil rights, morality and religion. Discussion focuses only rarely on the economic consequences of such legislat
ion.

That needs to change. As America’s businesses are increasingly acknowledging, policies that promote equality and diversity are good for the corporate bottom line. Tolerant policies help attract and retain top employees. That’s why 96 Fortune 100 companies, including Texas companies like ConocoPhillips, Valero
Energy, Marathon Oil, and SYSCO, ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in their organizations. Nearly two-thirds offer health benefits to same-sex partners.

In his best-selling book, Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida argues that respect for diversity enables companies to draw from the widest possible mix of creative and innovative employees
critical to economic success. Companies often cite competition for workers as a primary motivation behind
their decisions. No surprise then that, in addition to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, Texas companies such as Dell, J.C. Penney, and EDS offer such benefits.

The most divisive policy debate affecting gay and lesbian couples concerns the subject of Proposition 2, marriage rights. Currently, same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, conduct civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut, and can register partnerships in California and New Jersey.

Many other states explicitly ban recognition of same-sex marriages or partnerships. These increasingly divergent laws create financial and logistical liabilities for business leaders, adversely affect employee morale, complicate employment and benefit polices and make it harder for companies to relocate staff members and their families.

Consider a firm with operations in several states. What happens if the marriages of employees in Massachusetts are not recognized in the Texas office while employees in Virginia are denied the domestic partner health benefits that staff members in other states receive? In addition to creating complex corporate benefit issues, gay and lesbian employees may avoid or refuse promotions and reassignments that require transfers to places where they and their families lack critical legal protections.

Recognition of the rights of gay men and lesbians not only has an impact on private business, but on the economic growth of local communities — particularly in struggling urban neighborhoods. Findings from my book, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, reveal that gay and lesbian couples live in neighborhoods that
are more urban, have older and smaller homes and are more racially and ethnically diverse.

Popular culture and anecdotal evidence suggest that same-sex couples are helping to revitalize their neighborhoods with investments of money and elbow grease in home renovations. These investments pay off, both for gay couples and their neighbors. Houses in gay male couples’ neighborhoods are worth
20 percent more than houses in the typical neighborhoods of married couples.

States and communities that fail to protect the equal rights of its gay and lesbian citizens put these economic advantages at risk, since the gay and lesbian community appears more willing than others to move, perhaps in search
of friendlier environments. More than 55 percent of individuals in same-sex couples moved in the five years prior to Census 2000 compared to only 42 percent of those in different-sex couples. Put simply, equality for gay men and lesbians represents an economic win for companies and communities. It
enhances urban revitalization efforts, promotes creative and innovative workforces and provides corporations with the tools for making employees happy and productive.

Gary J. Gates is a senior research fellow at the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law.