not be recognized by <strong>the</strong>ir home state, ei<strong>the</strong>r atall, or in <strong>the</strong> case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a few states, not as amarriage, 28 will deter more couples fromtraveling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry. However, as<strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>e m<strong>on</strong>th that marriage was <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fered in SanFrancisco dem<strong>on</strong>strates, a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> coupleswill travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry for symbolic andemoti<strong>on</strong>al reas<strong>on</strong>s.We assume that travel costs will be less <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> adeterrent for individuals from states whichalready send a significant number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urists <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>California: Nevada, Ariz<strong>on</strong>a, Texas, Washing<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n,Oreg<strong>on</strong>, and North Carolina. Over 52% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>California’s domestic <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism originates from<strong>the</strong>se six states. 29 According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> data from <strong>the</strong>U.S. Census Bureau’s American CommunitySurvey, 124,771 same-sex couples live in <strong>the</strong>sestates. 30 We also estimate that 25% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong>secouples, or 31,193 couples, will travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry.We c<strong>on</strong>servatively estimate that 5% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong>couples in <strong>the</strong> remaining states, or 22,501couples, will travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry over<strong>the</strong> next three years. Massachusetts isexcluded, given that it is <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly state that hasextended marriage rights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> same-sex couples. 31We include states with domestic partner benefitsand civil uni<strong>on</strong>s because some individuals with<strong>the</strong>se benefits would still choose <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry inorder <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> receive <strong>the</strong> added social and emoti<strong>on</strong>albenefits that might be associated with marriage.In additi<strong>on</strong>, in New Hampshire and New Jersey aCalifornia marriage will also be recognized as acivil uni<strong>on</strong> without <strong>the</strong> need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> re-register forthat status in those states. 32In Table 2, we have set forth <strong>the</strong> estimatednumbers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-state same-sex couples whowould travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry. This resultsin an estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 67,513 same-sex couples whowill travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California from o<strong>the</strong>r states <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>marry.However, this estimate is c<strong>on</strong>servative since wedo not take in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account couples who were notcounted in <strong>the</strong> American Community Survey orany couples living in foreign countries whomight travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get married.Table 2: Out-Of-State <str<strong>on</strong>g>Same</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Sex</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Couples</str<strong>on</strong>g> Who Will Marry in California, First Three YearsStateNumber <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Same</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Sex</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>Couples</str<strong>on</strong>g> 33Number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Same</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Sex</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Couples</str<strong>on</strong>g> Traveling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>Marry (25% for named states, 5% for o<strong>the</strong>r 40 states andDC)New York 48,761 12,190New Mexico 6,515 1,629Ariz<strong>on</strong>a 15,709 3,927Nevada 6,298 1,575North Carolina 20,711 5,118Oreg<strong>on</strong> 12,659 3,165Texas 47,514 11,879Washing<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n 21,880 5,470O<strong>the</strong>r 40states and DC(excluding CAand MA)450,027 22,501TOTAL 67,5135
WEDDING AND TOURISM SPENDING<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> extensi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> marriage rights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> same-sexcouples will generate ec<strong>on</strong>omic gains forCalifornia businesses, generating tax revenuesfor state and local governments. Weddingscreate ec<strong>on</strong>omic activity as well as jobs,providing a boost <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omy. Forbesmagazine projects that if same-sex marriagerights were granted nati<strong>on</strong>-wide, same-sexweddings would generate $16.8 billi<strong>on</strong> dollars inexpenditures, adding significantly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> America’sannual $70 billi<strong>on</strong> wedding industry. 34 Ano<strong>the</strong>rrecent estimate c<strong>on</strong>cludes that gay marriage willgenerate a billi<strong>on</strong> dollars per year in spending inincrease in state and local From 2008-2010,government revenues. spending <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> United States. 35 Based <strong>on</strong> our analysis, weestimate that allowing<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism andFor over twenty years, analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<strong>the</strong>r states’ same-sex couples <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> wed in weddings by samesexcouples wouldc<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> opening marriage <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> same-sex California could result incouples have argued that <strong>the</strong> first state or states approximately $683.6<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do so would experience a wave <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> increased milli<strong>on</strong> in additi<strong>on</strong>al boost California’s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism from out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-state couples that would spending <strong>on</strong> weddings and ec<strong>on</strong>omy by overbring milli<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> additi<strong>on</strong>al dollars in revenue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism in <strong>the</strong> State overstate businesses.$683 milli<strong>on</strong>,36 In <strong>the</strong> Spring <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> next three years,issuance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> gay marriage licenses in Portland, creating approximately creating almostOreg<strong>on</strong> and San Francisco, California provided2,200 new jobssupport for <strong>the</strong>se predicti<strong>on</strong>s. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> actualexperience <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> businesses in Portland 37 and SanFrancisco 38 dem<strong>on</strong>strated that allowing samesexcouples <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry does in fact generate<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism and additi<strong>on</strong>al revenue for businesses.In fact, same-sex couples from forty-six statesand eight countries traveled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> San Francisco <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>get married during <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>e m<strong>on</strong>th that <strong>the</strong> cityissued marriage licenses. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, inanticipati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> availability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> same-sexmarriage in Massachusetts, cities in that stateexperienced a spike in hotel reservati<strong>on</strong>s,catering requests, and o<strong>the</strong>r wedding-relatedorders. 39Estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Massachusetts’ potential gain fromout-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-state couples coming <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> state <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>marry have exceeded $100 milli<strong>on</strong>. 40 However,<strong>the</strong> Supreme Court <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Massachusetts hasinterpreted a 1913 Massachusetts state law <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>prohibit gay and lesbian couples from outside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>the</strong> state from marrying in Massachusetts unless<strong>the</strong>y live in a state, namely New Mexico, NewYork and Rhode Island, which has a public policythat would support <strong>the</strong> recogniti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong>irmarriages. 41 As a result, California is poised <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>be <strong>the</strong> first state <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> take full advantage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong>same-sex <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism and wedding windfall.In this secti<strong>on</strong>, we estimate <strong>the</strong> potentialec<strong>on</strong>omic impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> weddings and <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism bysame-sex couples. By allowing same-sexcouples <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry—regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> residencystatus—California’s businesses will experience alarge increase in wedding and <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism revenuethat will also result in an2,178 new jobs 42 andresulting in additi<strong>on</strong>al stateand local tax revenues <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> $63.8 milli<strong>on</strong>. To put<strong>the</strong>se figures in c<strong>on</strong>text, $97 billi<strong>on</strong> was spen<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism in California in 2007, supporting924,100 jobs and generating $6.1 billi<strong>on</strong> in localand state tax revenues. 43<str<strong>on</strong>g>Couples</str<strong>on</strong>g> From O<strong>the</strong>r StatesIn order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism expendituresderived from <strong>the</strong> 67,513 out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-state coupleswho we estimate will likely marry in Californiaover <strong>the</strong> next three years, we draw <strong>on</strong> California<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism data that indicate <strong>the</strong> average perpers<strong>on</strong> per diem spending for California <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uristsas $162.80, and <strong>the</strong> average length <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> stay as4.15 days. 44 We estimate, <strong>the</strong>n, that <strong>the</strong>secouples will spend an average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> $1,351 <strong>on</strong>travel-related expenses during <strong>the</strong>ir stay inCalifornia.In additi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urism expenses, spending willalso be generated by <strong>the</strong> wedding preparati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>the</strong>mselves, including items such as cerem<strong>on</strong>ies,meals, parties, transportati<strong>on</strong>, flowers,6
Change language