The Massive Post Continued - May is proving to be a critical milestone in the quest for gay marriage outside Massachusetts as well. Later this month, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of same-sex weddings held in San Francisco in February and March. And currently, the California legislature is considering a bill, AB 1967, which would prohibit the discrimination of same-sex couples in obtaining marriage licenses.

One piece of analysis done as part of the deliberations on AB 1967 is a study from the Williams Project at UCLA Law School on the fiscal impact on California of allowing gay marriage. The conclusion is that the state would save over $20 million dollars as the result of allowing gay marriage in California.

Supporters are backing the bill without hesistation: "'This study makes it clear that equal protection is not only the right thing to do morally, but also fiscally,' said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, which is a sponsor of AB 1967. 'By passing this bill, the Legislature could avoid onerous proposed budget cuts in education and health programs.'" In other words, if you don't support gay marriage, you're not only homophobic, but against kids and sick people too!

The assumptions made in the study are fascinating, and I recommend that you read the full text. But to boil it down to the main points, the biggest savings results from a reduction in the number of people receiving public assistance money from the state with smaller amounts coming from increased sales tax revenues from tourism and from resident weddings. The study also acknowledges that there will be a decrease in income tax revenues due to some gays filing jointly once they marry. Another critical estimate made by the study's authors is that 46,000 gay couples will marry in California. This figure represents 50% of the couples who identified as unmarried partners on the 2000 Census, far below the 92% of heterosexual cohabitating couples who are married. However, 46,000 gay marriags is a number nearly 20,000 greater than the domestic partners currently registered with the state.

Even an estimate of 50% of unmarried partners marrying seems high, given the Vermont statistics that indicate "the annual number of civil unions has dropped steadily after the first year. Just half the gay households in the state have taken advantage of the law." It should be remembered that Vermont has the second highest percentage of lesbian couples in the nation. Perhaps the study should have factored in that California has more male couples than female couples, and that female couples are more likely to marry. Furthermore, in Vermont, civil unions for resident gay couples represented just 14% of all civil unions performed. In the 29 day period in February and March 2004 when gay marriage was permitted in San Francisco 4,037 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses, 91.4% of them Californians.

So while Vermont's civil unions have mostly been for nonresidents, thusfar, California gay marriages (which, admittedly on shakier ground, but neither are recognized in other states) were mostly for in-state residents. I'm still concerned that the Williams project study may overestimate the potential sales tax revenue from tourists marrying in California. While there was only a small spike in hotel reservations during SF's marriage blitz, with "about a 10% bump in business," according to a spokesman for one SF boutique hotel chain. Also remember that the study assumes that the non-resident gay couples will not be able to marry in their own states. However, it does assume that most people coming from outside California for a gay wedding will be from a Western state.

The fiscal analysis makes another interesting assumption about the amount that gay couples will spend on their weddings. While the national average for wedding costs is $22,000, the authors use a figure of $11,000 as their estimate for gay Californians, acknowledging that some couples may have "already had a committment ceremony and that same-sex couples may be less able to rely on the resources of their parents or family for wedding expenses." While I think their analysis is thoughtful, I question if an estimate of $11,000 in wedding expenditures for gay couples is "conservative."

However, the Williams project estimate of $11,000 is far more conservative than an oft-cited estimate by Forbes Magazine putting the windfall from spending on gay marriages at $16.8 billion. The Forbes figures are not especially reliable, as they assume that 92% of homosexual couples who identified themselves as unmarried partners on the 2000 Census would get married if it were legal. Furthermore, the dollar amounts used by Forbes seem inflated. For example, as part of their methodology, they calculate the price of wedding dresses and engagement rings into the total. I think the Forbes team assumes that for every marriage of two men in rented tuxedos, there will be a marriage of two women in lavish gowns. First off, lesbians are more likely to marry than gay men. Secondly, not every lesbian will wear a wedding dress. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the average spent on apparel will mirror the heterosexual average. And with engagement rings, I doubt that male couples will be spending much, if any, cash on diamond rings for each other. Finally, the Forbes estimate assumes that gays will receive the national average of 100 gifts at an average amount of $85 per gift. However, I question this figure, because I wonder if gay wedding receptions won't be more likely to be smaller intimate affairs, with extended families and coworkers less likely to be invited. I was glad to see that Forbes did acknowledge that this gay wedding windfall does not apply at tax time. I don't need to belabor the point, but there is plenty of evidence that without the right to marriage, gays can end up at a financial disadvantage later in life as compared to their married heterosexual peers.

I don't mean to reduce the impact of the Williams Project analysis or the Forbes article, but I think that if gay marriage proponents want to use an argument to appeal to fiscal conservaties, they need to be rock-solid. By proving that gay marriage will result in a more robust economy, fewer people on welfare, and won't cause a decrease in tourism due to backlash against gay marriage, I think we can neutralize the "ick factor" for many people and ensure a more supportive base of support for same-sex weddings. Marriage-lite is no long an option. Gay marriage is the goal, the proving ground is now Massachusetts and our efforts to demonstrate the actual benefits commence today.