sign in sign up
<<
Home , Domestic partnership

The Effect of Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy

October 2006

M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD The Williams Institute on Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Gary J. Gates, PhD The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law 1 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The n uiested ugs httentipc fequal treatmentforsame-sexcouplesis thatthenetimpactof and businesstrendssuggest bothresearch theseeffectsaredifficulttoquantifydirectlyforabottom-linecomparison, While 3. 2. 1. employees inthesameway thatdifferent-sex spousesaretreated. assume thatthosestatepolicieswould of requireemployers totreatsame-sexspousesorpartners We union statustosame-sexcouples. rightsordomesticpartner/ statesgrant if outlinesthepotentialbenefitsandcoststobusinesses brief This recognizing same-sexcouples. policymakers have economicimpactof asked aboutthelarger the UnitedStates, of parts equalityforsame-sexcouplescontinues inmany marriage theissueof As publicdiscussionof I TOUTO AND NTRODUCTION We budgets: findnetbenefitsforstateandfederal We findsomepotentialcoststobusinesses: forsame-sexcouples: equaltreatment We potentialbusinessbenefitsof findseveral araeeult ol euetenme funinsuredpeopleintheUnitedStates, equality would reducethenumber of Marriage • budgets. equality would forstateandfederalgovernment leadtoanetgain Marriage • businessesarelikely toincurone-timetransitioncostsadapttheiraccounting Larger • businesseswould Large seevery Mostbusinesseswould seenonewspousestocover. • who employees' spousesorpartners equalitywould increasethenumber of Marriage • equalitywould make iteasierformultistate Marriage andmultinational businessesto • Newweddings orotherceremonieswould bea$2billionboonforwedding-related • employers in orspousalbenefitswillincreasethecompetitiveness Domesticpartner of • andlesslikely to leave theirjobsif moresatisfied, employees willbehealthier, Current • which andemployers. couldreducepressureonhealthcarecostsforthegovernment related software andcompliancerequirements. aswell asother same-sexpartners, systems toaccommodatethetaxconsequencesof small increasesinhealthplanenrollmentandbenefitscosts. must becovered inemployer healthcareplans. treatment forallemployees. andsimplicityinrespondingtodiverse familyneedsandsustainingfair uniformity businessleadersarelikely tocrave jurisdictionalrequirements, growing of hodge-podge Withapotential policies. transfer employees andtocreateconsistentbenefitsalary industries intheUnitedStates. andretainingtalentedcommittedemployees.recruiting benefits. domesticpartner they get on BusinessandtheEconomy S UMMARY The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy

positive for businesses. Corporate America has been a leader in voluntarily creating policies that promote equality for and employees and recognize the of and . Today, 98 of the Fortune 100 companies have policies that prohibit based on sexual orientation and 79 of those companies offer domestic partner health benefits to employees with a same-sex partner or .1 Over one half of the Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits. These voluntary changes in policy support the conclusion that policies of equal treatment will improve the financial bottom line.

POSITIVE IMPACTS ON LGB EMPLOYEES

A growing body of research shows that offering domestic partner benefits has several positive effects on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees. These effects on employees would likely benefit employers. • A supportive workplace climate and supportive policies, including domestic partner benefits, increase disclosure, or "," of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees.2 • Disclosure has potentially positive benefits to worker health. Several studies find that people who are more out report lower levels of anxiety and less conflict between work and personal life.3 • Lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers who are more out will be better workers. Several studies show that out workers report greater job satisfaction.4 In addition, in one study participants who are more out also report sharing their employer's values and goals more than workers who are more closeted.5 Another study shows that more out workers report higher levels of satisfaction with their co-workers.6 • Research also shows that partner benefits reduce gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers' turnover and increase their commitment to firms.7

POSITIVE BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Domestic partner benefits increase the competitiveness of employers in recruiting and retaining talented and committed employees. Partner benefits are becoming increasingly important in competing for talented and committed employees of all sexual orientations. Recruitment and turnover are costly for employers; therefore, offering partner benefits could lower those costs. Survey results from recent national polls by Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs support the notion that domestic partner benefits provide both tangible benefits and positive signals to all employees: • One-third of heterosexual survey respondents believed that an anti-gay law preventing employers from offering domestic partner benefits would have "quite a bit" or "a great deal" of a negative impact on employers' ability to recruit and retain the most qualified employees.8 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006

22 The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy

• 69% of heterosexual employees agreed that "Regardless of their sexual orientation, all employees are entitled to equal benefits on the job, such as health insurance for their partners or ."9 • Almost half (48%) of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees said that partner benefits would be their most important consideration if offered another job.10 • 6% of heterosexual workers reported that domestic partner benefits would be the most important factor in deciding to accept a new job - more than those who would look for on-site child care.11 • 7% of heterosexual workers who actually changed jobs reported that partner benefits were the most important factor in that decision - a factor almost as common as changing jobs for better retirement benefits (12%).12

In his book The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida found that heterosexual employees, even those without domestic partners, often look for domestic partner benefits as a signal of an employer that values diversity and creativity.13 In his follow-up book, The Flight of the Creative Class, Florida argues that regions that do not embrace the benefits of diversity-friendly policies risk alienating the creative workforce that is the key to gaining a competitive edge in the global market.14

STATE-BY-STATE DIFFERENCES IN RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES COULD BE COSTLY FOR BUSINESS

The varied legal statuses being created for same-sex couples could limit multistate and multinational corporations' ability to manage and retain staff.15 Employers with employees in Canada, Massachusetts, or other jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry or register are already adapting to legal changes and gaining experience on the process of change, but such employers may face future challenges: • Lesbian and gay employees may avoid and even refuse promotions and reassignments that require transfers to places where they and their families lack critical legal protections. Under state laws hostile to same-sex unions, spouses could become legal to each other and to their children. Without a legal designation, some partners may not be allowed to authorize emergency medical treatment for their children. • An uncertain policy climate can raise business costs. Varying state laws and regulations regarding the status of same-sex couples increase the complexity of corporate salary and benefit policies and can put multistate and multinational companies in legal limbo regarding appropriate treatment of these couples. WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006

33 The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy

WEDDINGS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES WOULD PROVIDE A BOOST FOR -RELATED INDUSTRIES

Numerous businesses gain from new spending in this area: retail gifts, hotels, florists, restaurants, caterers, etc. Same-sex couples' would create approximately $2 billion in new business for those industries nationwide.

The experiences of , , and Portland, , suggest that the local economic benefits of same-sex weddings are substantial. The couples who married in San Francisco during a one-month window of availability in 2004 came from 46 states and eight countries.16 Businesses in Portland17 and San Francisco reported that same-sex wedding visitors spent substantial amounts of money on wedding-related goods and services. Furthermore, Massachusetts witnessed an increased demand for hotels, catering services, and other wedding- related goods and services when same-sex couples began to marry there in May 2004.19

To estimate potential wedding expenditures, we first estimate the number of couples who might marry using Census 2000 data on same-sex unmarried partner couples. Then we multiply the number of couples by average wedding spending to get an estimate of total spending. • According to Census 2000, there are over 594,000 same-sex couples living together in the . Based on Vermont's experience with same-sex civil unions, we predict that half of a state's same-sex couples would marry (or enter some similar legal status) during the first few years of being offered the opportunity - almost 300,000 couples.20 • According to industry sources, the average wedding in the United States cost $27,490 in 2006.21 However, since some couples may already have had commitment ceremonies, their spending on a wedding may be less than the typical wedding. Also, due to societal discrimination, same-sex couples may receive less financial support from their and other members to cover wedding costs. Finally, only spending that comes from couples' savings would truly be new spending for a state's businesses, rather than money diverted from some other use. Accordingly, we assume that the average same- sex couple will spend only 25% of the average amount, or $6,873. • Even using the low end of the estimates for weddings and spending, the total for all couples in the U.S. would be $2 billion in additional wedding spending.

In the appendix we present estimates of spending by in-state couples for each state. However, it is important to note that as long as only a few states allow same-sex couples to marry, those states are likely to see added spending by out-of-state couples. For instance, if Massachusetts permitted out-of-state same-sex couples to marry, one study estimates that the state would experience new WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006

44 The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy

spending in excess of $100 million.22 As of today, though, Massachusetts does not currently allow out-of-state same-sex couples to marry there.23

POTENTIAL COSTS TO BUSINESSES

Giving same-sex couples marriage rights would mean that gay and lesbian employees could sign up their partners for health care benefits, the most expensive benefit that is commonly offered to employees. However, both employers' reports of enrollment changes and other research suggest that business costs for benefits for partners and/or new spouses are low.24 • More than 96 percent of firms will have no additional costs for health care benefits as a result of extending marriage to same-sex couples. At most, only about 190,000 out of 5 million U.S. firms will even have one new spouse covered by its health benefit programs. • The vast majority of small businesses, those with 0-19 employees, will see no change in costs at all. • Large businesses, i.e., those with more than 500 employees, will see an average increase of just under $25,000 per year for providing additional health benefits. • Implementation costs might involve small one-time costs to adapt accounting systems to accommodate the tax consequences of same-sex partners, as well as other related software and compliance requirements.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY HAS POSITIVE EFFECTS ON PUBLIC BUDGETS

Recent studies demonstrate the positive impact of marriage equality on state and federal budgets, even after considering the effect of added spending on state employee benefits and tax law changes.25 A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that if same-sex couples could marry in all fifty states, and if those were treated like all other marriages in federal law, the policy would add almost a billion dollars per year to federal coffers.26

Increased state revenue most often results from two primary sources: • States would spend less on public assistance, since family-level income thresholds associated with some means-tested social programs would reduce the eligibility of some same-sex couples and their children if they are treated as a family unit. • The increased spending on weddings noted earlier would also generate sales tax revenues.

An additional positive effect is that domestic partnership or marriage equality would reduce the number of uninsured people. A recent study shows that people in same-sex couples are almost WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006

55 6 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The Lynn ComellaandRebecca Stotzerfortheirresearch support. and Gouldfortheircommentsonearlierversions, andStephen BobWiteck, We thankBradSears, A willseeanetgain. stateandfederalbudgets Inaddition, weddings. the wedding-related industrieswillexperienceincreasedrevenues andprofitsfrommore Businessesin andstability. health, to employers frompositive effectsonemployees' productivity, Smallcoststotheemployer arebalancedoutby benefits or herfamilyaswell astotheemployer. forboththeemployee which andhis resultsingains theirfamilies, the healthandwell-being of Employer orspousesequallywould policiesthattreatemployees withsame-sexpartners improve C on healthcarecostsforemployers. uninsuredpeoplewould alsolikely reducepressure Reducing thenumber of uncompensated care. spendingon andreducedgovernment reduced stateandfederalMedicaidexpenditures, which would leadtoimproved health, thenmorepeoplewould beinsured, couples asmarried, couples.twice aslikely tobe uninsured asthoseinmarried CKNOWLEDGEMENTS ONCLUSION on BusinessandtheEconomy 27 femployers treatedsame-sex If 7 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The Massachusetts Connecticut Mississippi Minnesota California Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Colorado Delaware Michigan Arkansas Montana Alabama Missouri Georgia Arizona Indiana Kansas Florida Hawaii Illinois Alaska Idaho State Iowa DC US 1 Total costper wedding $18,970 $24,190 $19,240 $30,510 $26,120 $34,910 $32,710 $21,170 $20,620 $22,270 $25,290 $23,090 $23,640 $28,860 $22,540 $30,510 $28,040 $25,570 $30,790 $29,410 $36,560 $29,690 $32,160 $20,620 $27,760 $30,790 $20,620 $27,490 on BusinessandtheEconomy 2 Same-sex couples 594,391 12,332 15,368 17,099 11,243 10,219 22,887 19,288 41,048 10,045 92,138 4423 1180 8109 1218 4774 9147 3394 8808 7114 3973 3698 1873 2389 3678 1868 7386 9428 3 marry (50% marry fCol.3) of Couples likely to 297,196 11,444 20,524 46,069 2212 6166 4055 4714 2387 4574 7684 8550 5622 1697 4404 3557 1987 1849 5110 1195 9644 1839 3693 5023 590 609 937 934 4 spending per wedding (25% of $5,155 $6,940 $7,698 $5,155 $6,873 $4,743 $6,048 $4,810 $7,628 $6,530 $8,728 $8,178 $5,293 $5,155 $5,568 $6,323 $5,773 $5,910 $7,215 $5,635 $7,628 $7,010 $6,393 $7,698 $7,353 $9,140 $7,423 $8,040 Col.2) New 5 $2,042,476,074 Cl 4times (Col. $131,199,670 $370,394,760 $11,400,283 $42,792,040 $20,900,948 $28,507,915 $11,481,470 $34,884,371 $50,176,520 $74,615,761 $45,969,816 $22,702,620 $19,803,598 $12,559,646 $10,673,353 $30,197,145 $82,564,853 $67,604,440 $14,155,703 $33,754,020 $37,279,506 $4,541,525 $2,888,183 $8,981,373 $5,277,178 $9,111,049 $6,867,235 Spending Col.5) Total 6 8 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The oe e etfrepaaino assumptions. Seetextforexplanationof Note: New Hampshire North Carolina North South Carolina North Dakota North South Dakota West Virginia Rhode Island New Mexico Pennsylvania Oklahoma New York Wisconsin Tennessee Wyoming Nebraska Vermont Virginia Oregon Texas Ohio Utah $22,820 $25,020 $18,420 $26,940 $31,340 $23,370 $27,490 $26,390 $22,540 $21,990 $22,540 $26,120 $26,120 $25,020 $21,170 $25,570 $21,170 $23,640 $30,240 $21,440 $35,460 $30,510 $27,490 $23,640 on BusinessandtheEconomy 18,937 16,198 46,490 16,604 15,900 13,802 42,912 10,189 21,166 8932 5763 4496 2703 4973 2332 8232 1933 3370 7609 2471 2916 703 807 826 23,245 21,456 10,583 4466 2882 9469 8099 2248 8302 1352 2487 1166 4116 1458 7950 6901 1685 5095 3805 1236 352 404 967 413 $6,255 $5,293 $6,393 $5,293 $5,910 $7,560 $5,360 $8,865 $7,628 $6,873 $5,910 $5,705 $6,255 $4,605 $6,735 $7,835 $5,843 $6,873 $6,598 $5,635 $5,498 $5,635 $6,530 $6,530 $175,732,200 $141,555,960 $27,934,830 $15,250,339 $60,527,386 $47,865,090 $12,049,280 $73,597,230 $10,308,566 $17,088,471 $25,745,580 $53,543,250 $54,069,335 $11,580,163 $28,707,508 $21,438,358 $69,106,990 $1,860,314 $6,891,060 $2,301,968 $6,714,090 $5,646,776 $2,270,468 $8,067,815 9 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The Applied Psychology Applied Across-level examination. sexualdiversity: toaffirm efforts Organizational (2001). onel 2001. Cornwell, 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 N Counseling Psychology heterosexismasminoritystressin theworkplace. modelof Astructural Working inamajority context: (1999). R. C. seeWaldo, turnover forGLB employees: likelihood of opennessaboutone's of jobsatisfactionanddegree men. sexual orientationforlesbiansandgay relationof The (1995). B. D. E. & Riggle, Griffith &Hebl. Relationshipscommunication aboutsexualorientationandwork between attitudes. Staying intheclosetversus comingout: (1997). P. &Schoenrade, N., andsocialsupport. self-esteem, positive affectivity, todisclosurestatus. workplace actorandpartner policyandinternalized B. relationof D. The E. "Out"atWork: &Riggle, (2002). S., S. Rostosky, Routledge; and Jefferson LeeBadgett Frank, V. edited by M. Lesbian AndBisexualEmployees," in Gay Family-Friendly Policies OnGay, Of Influence The "We Are Family: (Forthcoming). "Comingout"at work. menandlesbians: disclosuredilemmaforgay The (2002). R. M. &Hebl, H., Relation to Occupational StressandSatisfaction," "LesbianIdentityandDisclosureintheWorkplace: and Kelley, (1996). A. E. F. Kelley, R. M., Fassinger, J. Driscoll, Press; Chicago University of andLondon: Chicago www for theGLBTFamily," HumanRightsCampaign, http://www aisadCrwl.Arltdsuyfnsta xeine fheterosexismincreasethe Arelatedstudyfindsthatexperiencesof Ragins andCornwell. Employer Trends andBenefitsEquivalency "DomesticPartner Benefits: Samir Luther(2006). 2006 poll by Out & Equal/Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs,2006 pollby Out&Equal/Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs.2004 pollby Harris Ellis andRiggle. L., A. Ellis, somestudieslooked forbutdidnotfind thislink: However, Day &Schoenrade. Griffith&Hebl. Day &Schoenrade; andFassinger; Kelley, Driscoll, Itsrelationtoanxiety, Comingoutforlesbianwomen: (1998). H. R. &Deluty, M., K. Jordan, (2001). L. V. M. Badgett, March Interactive/Witeck-Combs. 2003pollby Harris March Interactive/Witeck-Combs. 2003pollby Harris OTES Journal of Applied Psychology Applied Journal of .outandequal.or 61,17-28. 86(1), , 62,218-232. 46(2), , on BusinessandtheEconomy oe,Mts n hne TeEooi ie flesbiansandgay men. Money, Myths, of andChange:TheEconomiclives g/ne ws/pr/documents/2006_W 76,19-19 ais .. onel J.M. &Cornwell, B.R., Ragins, 1191-1199; 87(6), , ora fCounselingPsychology Journal of Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective Sexual OrientationDiscrimination:AnInternational ora fVocational Behavior Journal of ora fHomosexuality Journal of ora fHomosexuality Journal of .hr c .or or Personnel Psychology g 94,4149 utn .B. S. Button, 411-419. 49(4), , kplace_Sur . o.4,2922 rfih K. Griffith, 229-242; 48, Vol. , 02,7-5 Ragins& 75-85; 30(2), , v 52,4-3 Day, 41-63; 35(2), , e y052306.pdf 0 147-163; 50, , Journal of Journal of , 10 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The http://www slides2-3(2004), Marriages Investor's BusinessDaily for Gay Couples," Sex Nuptials," 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 uut1,2006. August 11, http://www 2005(onfilewithauthors). emaildatedJuly 11, Health, Vermont of Department VitalRecords, Officeof Vermont civil unionstatisticsprovided by Richard McCoy, unions. Herald "P'town SetforGay-Wed Rush," Marie(2004). SeealsoSzaniszlo, looking tomarry. couples" 10to100percent ininquiriesandbookingsfromgay andNorthampton have of seen"anupsurge Cambridge, inBoston, andjewelers, florists, banquethalls, such ashotels, 'Giddy'Newlyweds Have Been Neighborhood," Boon For S.F. "WindfallinCastro: Heather(2004). Knight, couples marry. wedding ringsduringthemonththatSanFrancisco letsame-sex storeranoutof department andtheysay they've seenan andlesbiancustomers."increase ingay I've talked tothehotelpeople, whatever. children, friends, families, sometimeswith in, fly They becausemorepeoplearecomingtoPortland. positive impact, APackage Deal," Tourism: (2004)"Gay Marriage, David. Sarasohn, inforweddings. families fly hasprovided an"economicboost"toPortland assame-sexcouplesandtheir same-sex marriage isquotedassaying that VisitorsAssociation, thePortland Oregon presidentof D'Alessandro, Marriages," Marriages," 20) "SanFrancisco Toasts Gay Weddings," (2004). DeanE. bookstoresandphotoprocessors." Murphy, liquorshops, stores, jewelry florists, forbusinessesasnewlyweds were throw "great theirmoneyattheneighborhood's marriages Belkin, D. (2004) "Wedding Bell Bonanza Tourism, Marriage Industry Foresee Industry BoominSame- Marriage (2004)"Wedding BellBonanzaTourism, D. Belkin, March Interactive/Witeck-Combs. 2003pollby Harris Jung, Helen. (2004) "Gay Marriages May BringJoy (2004)"Gay Marriages toTourism," Helen. Jung, Same Breakdown Of Demographics SanFrancisco Assessor-Recorder, (2004). MabelS. Teng, atStake What's forBusiness, Robert (2004)Same-sexMarriage: andWiteck, Gary Gates, (2005) Richard. Florida, (2002) Richard. Florida, h orefrti iueadtesaefgrsi h pedxi h edn eot at Wedding sourcefor this figureandthestatefiguresinappendixisThe The Report, Vermont's have same-sexpartners chosen toentercivil 57% of According tostatesources, See, e.g. p.1,p 10. p. 11, Apr. , Oregonian , Bly, p. D1; Singer, Thea (2004). "Three Swank Cities are Becoming Marriage Meccas Swank CitiesareBecomingMarriage "Three (2004). Thea Singer, D1; p. Bly, , USA Today .alice .the Boston Globe w p.1,p 4 loqoe 'lsadoa aig "It'sdefinitely having a alsoquotesD'Alessandro assaying, C4, p. 11, Apr. , btoklas ed Boston Herald ding 1Jl.(seehttp://www 21July. , on BusinessandtheEconomy , Feb. 27, p. 1D. Jung reports thathotelswere Jung fullandMacy's reports 1D. p. 27, Feb. , .or r e por e.2,p ;By ar 20) "LocalitiesCashinginonSame-Sex Laura(2004). Bly, 1; p. 26, Feb. , Flight of the Creative Class, theCreative Flight of Class. theCreative The Riseof g/a t.com/wmdb/inde bt/samese , Mar. 22, p. 27. Singer reports thatwedding-related businesses reports Singer 27. p. 22, Mar. , San Francisco Chronicle available at xmar ria New York Times .urban.or g x.cfm?action=db esta aproln,NewYork. HarperCollins, , Feb. 18, p. A1, reports thatsame-sex reports A1, p. 18, Feb. , ts ai ok,NewYork. Basic Books, .ppt g/pub ls iie eebr7 2005). (last visitedDecember7, e.2,p 3. p. 29, Feb. , lica .te tions/900722.html Oregonian xtvie wsta a.5 .D.Joe D1. p. 5, Mar. , te lastaccessed , ) Boston 11 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY October 2006 The Effect of Marriage EqualityandDomesticPartnership Marriage of Effect The 27 SameSe 26 25 24 23 22 a 20) "Romney Won't LetGay OutsidersWed inMassachusetts,"Pam (2004). Different-Sex Couples," Unequal AccesstoEmployment-Based HealthInsuranceonSame-SexandUnmarried of seehttp://www 21June 2004, Marriages, seehttp://www Hampshire, http://www IGLSSandHRC, Same-Sex Couples," andGates, Badgett thatwould intheirown state. notbelegal couples toenterintoamarriage ordered clerkstocomplywitha1913Massachusetts law forout-of-state thatmakes itillegal 5 .1. p. 25, Ash, Michael Ash, and M. V. Lee Badgett (forthcoming). "Separate and Unequal: The Effect The andUnequal: "Separate (forthcoming). LeeBadgett V. andM. Michael Ash, Ash, Recognizing Same-Sex Impactof Potential The Budgetary Office, Budget Congressional andNew California, Washington, NewMexico, Connecticut, For onNewJersey, reports for Marriage BusinessCostImpactof "The Gates(2004). J. andGary Lee, V. M. Badgett, Governor MittRomney inMassachusetts, becamelegal aftersame-sexmarriage Shortly at27. Singer, xMar .ig ria lss g e .or .pdf g/media/f . on BusinessandtheEconomy Contemporary EconomicPolicy. Contemporary .la iles/b w .uc la.edu/williamsinstitute/pub usimpact.pdf .cbo .g o v/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21- . See alsoAshandBadgett. lica tions/P New York Times olic See, e.g. y-Econ-inde Belluck, , April , x.html .