Keeping Marriage Equality Illegal Costs...

[Andara Bledin]

It is estimated that since legalizing marriage equality in New York, there has been economic benefits in excess of $250m to the state.

Article on The Atlantic Wire

The article also comments that it has been estimated that California has lost out on nearly $700m in economic activity since the passage of Prop 8 three years ago, which would be in line with New York's estimate of their increase over the past year.

Not all states will benefit as much as New York or California, but generally speaking, it would be likely that removing bans on allowing same-sex marriage would just about double all revenue related to weddings across the board no matter where you were.

As more states support the rights of all of their citizens, those that don't will lose more and more revenue as people marry and possibly migrate to neighboring states who are not so rigidly antiquarian.

^-.-^

[bara]

But... that is unpossible according to far right/religious derp derp!

[Ginger Tea]

If you live in one state that doesn't support same sex marriage and get married in one that does, are you still married once you go back home?
ie is the wedding recognised just the state wont conduct, or does that vary from state to state?

Plus people will let fellow would be newlyweds which companies to avoid due to homophobic actions whilst orgainising the first draft of the (anything wedding related) forcing them to cancel them and go with some one else.
companies would rather end up on the 'pink list' rather than the black list, money is money at the end of the day and all.

[AdminAssistant]

If you live in one state that doesn't support same sex marriage and get married in one that does, are you still married once you go back home?

Depends on the state, but generally, no.

[Nekojin]

Depends on the state, but generally, no.

That's actually not true. States are supposed to honor legal arrangements that are created by other states. It's called the Full Faith and Credit clause. That's why you hear about Vegas marriages and Reno divorces.

I may have used this example before...

My mother's a retired Family Law attorney. Two of my cousins (who are cousins to each other) were in-state for a family reunion. Mom asked them if they wanted to get married, and they made noncommittal, waffling noises. She urged them to get married while they were in California, because they couldn't be when they went back to the state that they lived in (Mississippi, I believe). If they were married in California, MS would have had to recognize the marriage as a valid marriage.

That, too, is part of the reason why Moral Conservatives are trying to make the Full Faith clause NOT apply to gay marriage.

Edit: For those who don't want to follow the link, the Full Faith and Credit clause reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Marriages definitely fall into the, "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings," category.

[AdminAssistant]

I thought DOMA gave states the right to not recognize marriages from other states?

[Nekojin]

I thought DOMA gave states the right to not recognize marriages from other states?

Yes, but the case law hasn't exactly supported that. There have been very few DOMA cases that were tried over the Full Faith and Credit issue (most of them are attacking Article 3, the definition of a marriage as one man and one woman), and it seems to be a mixed bag which way it falls out. Without looking at the cases in depth, it certainly seems to be yet another "Red State / Blue State" rift, with "Blue" states affirming FF&C, and Red states denying it.

We'll see how well it holds up in the next few years. I suspect it'll be shot down completely within the decade... because I don't think that Congress has the will to proactively repeal it.

Edit a few hours later: Also note that as long as Article 3 of DOMA is still considered the law of the land, non-heterosexual marriages are functionally illegal; no state can issue a marriage certificate for two men or two women (or any polygamous mix). So there's very little for other states to make an issue over (aside from the very small handful of marriages that have occurred during those brief windows that it was fully legal in places like California).

[wolfie]

How long until some "SSM is EVIL" state makes it a criminal offense for residents whose marriage would not be legal at home to go out of state in order to marry?

[smileyeagle1021]

We'll see how well it holds up in the next few years. I suspect it'll be shot down completely within the decade... because I don't think that Congress has the will to proactively repeal it.

quite the opposite, Congress is very actively defending it right now... and will continue to do so until the day the Supreme Court overthrows it... and even then they will try to pass new laws to take it's place. There are very few places in this country that you can get elected on a platform of equality for gays and lesbians. Washington and Maryland may prove me wrong, but right now, the voting record does not look good, in every state where lgbt equality has been put to a vote it has lost, by large margins, and politicians know this and will never pick up what they know is a losing issue.

[Ladeeda]

This is one of those cases where supporters basically have to sneak into office, then have legitimate or fabricated change of heart, and basically FORCE the issue into legality. It's that, or wait for the bigots [who tend to be older] to die off.

I say do both and see which works first.

[Kelmon]

I doubt very much that revenue would *double* in the long run. Of course, since the change of legislation, many non-straight couples used the opportunity to get married, so there are probably just a lot of such marriages now. After a while, it will probably drop to roughly the same level as non-straight people in the population. So...around 5-10%, if i remember right?

Still, the argument stands. Allowing non-straight marriage will generate more revenue for the state. Unfortunately, money is probably not the issue for some people standing in the way of marriage equality.