From: ramsey@math.hawaii.edu Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 01:29:37 HST Subject: HAWAII, AUG. 11 IMPACT OF JENNIFER BROWN'S REPORT: LET'S LEGALIZE GAMBLING! During the last two weeks, Dan Foley and HERMP volunteers have widely distributed Jennifer Brown's excellent law review article on the tourism impact of same-sex marriage on Hawaii (USC Law Review). On August 9, the Honolulu Weekly ran an article by Curt Sanburn (page 4) in which he describes Jennifer Brown's paper and advocates same-sex marriage (as opposed to legalized gambling) as the more noble (and lucrative) action and much more in character with local culture. On August 10, the Honolulu Advertiser (the daily morning paper in Honolulu) ran a guest editorial by Dan Foley entitled "Gay marriage a revenue base". Both articles are appended. Because Hawaii is a small state, $4 billion means much: the wealth effect is about $6,700 per household. Earlier this week, three big heavy-weights in the Hawaii House, Speaker Joe Souki, Terrance Tom (judiciary chair) and Calvin Say (finance chair) announced a statewide series of public hearings on legalized gambling. Hearings will be held on all islands, commencing August 23 and finishing by mid-December (in time for the January start of the 1996 legislative session). The dynamics couldn't be clearer: these three legislators oppose same-sex marriage but HAD to have an answer to economic arguments offered by Jennifer Brown. Otherwise, come January and another huge budget deficit, same-sex marriage would be the only viable path for increasing state revenues (without raising taxes). So, rather than contemplate justice, let us tax the poor further with a lottery or some other form of gambling. [Out-of-state readers, do NOT contact these legislators with a piece of your mind---outside interference backfires here, badly.] CNN, on or about August 5, broadcast some study about the frequency of mental illness among gays and/or lesbians (heard to be 3 times the rate among heterosexuals). Does anyone have a source, transcript, etc.???? peyq77a@prodigy.com would like to have the reference. Aloha! Tom Ramsey Secretary, HERMP Steering Committee P.S. Mahalo to K. D., AGM for a trendy restaurant here in Honolulu, who delivered about 40 pounds of pennies to HERMP. Mahalo, and love, and kisses! I'll personally count them all!!!!! And likewise, Mahalo to B.P. for the $100 check AND the pennies. You are an angel! Donations to HERMP are needed, and are tax-deductible: GLCC/HERMP, 1820 University Ave., Honolulu, HI 96822. GAY MARRIAGE A REVENUE BASE Honolulu Advertiser, August 10 by Daniel R. Foley (an attorney representing same-sex couples) If Hawaii becomes the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, $4 billion in revenues would be generated in the next few years by couples coming to the Islands to marry and honeymoon. This means that a same- sex marriage tourist industry would eliminate Hawaii's current budget deficit. This is the conclusion of Professor Jennifer Gerarda Brown (Quinnipiac College of Law) in an article published in the University of Southern California's Law Review. In her study, Brown details how same-sex marriages would boost tourism, generate a wealth of new jobs and businesses, and increase tax revenues in the state. Hawaii is geared to handle such a market and no additional governmental investment or infrastructure would be needed. All that would be required is that our state stop discriminating against same-sex couples. Brown's conclusion is based on conservative estimates that gay men and lesbians are 1 percent to 3 percent of the general population, that gays and lesbians will marry at one-third the rate of the general population, and that each marriage would generate $6,000 of in-state spending. Brown also considers and offsets the amount of tourist revenues that could be lost by tourists who would avoid a same-sex marriage tourist market. She writes that same-sex marriage would be a boon to Hawaii's economy---much like gambling, corporations and insurance have buoyed the respective economies of Nevada, Delaware and Connecticut. Hawaii's situation is critical. The economy is in a downward spiral, and we have yet to fully absorb the impact of future state and federal cutbacks. However, we do not need to lay off governmental workers, valuable city and state services do not have to be reduced or eliminated, and we do not have to tolerate the erosion of our educational institutions. We could look forward to a future of prosperity. All that would be needed is for Hawaii to extend equal rights to all of its citizens, including gay and lesbian couples. It is understood that many of Hawaii's citizens do not agree with same-sex marriages and that the concept is inconsistent with the belief and customs of many of Hawaii's churches. However, no church or clergy would be required to perform, accept, or recognize a same-sex union. The freedom of religion and establishment clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution allow clergy and churches to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. Discrimination has its price---whether is is discrimination against racial or religious minorities, or whether it is discrimination based on gender. The state's refusal to allow same-sex marriages denies it an option that could greatly help relieve economic difficulties in Hawaii. The choice is clear. Hawaii can extend equal rights to all of its citizens and enjoy the fruits of economic prosperity, or our state can continue to discriminate and suffer the effects of certain economic decline. The choice is ours. end-of-article WEDDING GIFTS by Curt Sanburn Honolulu Weekly, August 9 Four billion dollars. That's 4,000,000,000 pieces of green paper that might flutter down on Hawaii's golden, benevolent shores and its golden, benevolent people---if the state Supreme Court decides that the state's marriage statute discriminates on the basis of gender and violates the state constitution's equal-protection clause. The $4 billion figure is the most salient one to emerge from a paper, "Competitive Federalism and the Legislative Incentives of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage", published in the May '95 issue of the Southern California Law Review. The 90-page paper was submitted by Jennifer Gerarda Brown, a wife and mother and a law professor at Connecticut's Quinnipiac College School of Law. In her paper Brown lays down some fairly conservative assumptions to arrive at her conclusion that $4 billion worth of new jobs, business and tax revenues will accrue to the state of Hawaii upon the legalization of same-sex marriages. Her three critical assumptions are as follows: 1) the number of gay Americans: between 1 and 3 percent of the general population, 2) the expected rate of marriage within the gay population: one-third the rate of the general population, 3) the in-state spending generated by each gay-marriage trip to Hawaii, assuming legalization: $6,000, or less than one-half the average amount spent on weddings and honeymoons in the United States. From there, using simple mathematics, Brown arrives at the $4 billion estimated figure. Brown outlines the wide range of estimates that can be made based on varying assumptions: At the most conservative levels (1 percent of population being gay and only 15 percent of them marrying), tourist revenues would be over $1.1 billion. At the most liberal levels (3 percent of population being gay and 45 percent of them marrying), tourist revenues would hit $10.2 billion. The existing stock of pent-up marriage demand among same-sex couples who cannot now marry in the United States is a key factor in figuring the short- and long-term economic benefits of legalization of same-sex marriage. Brown estimates the value of pent-up demand at $3.4 billion over 5 years [Brown discounts future years with an appropriate interest rate----TR] After the pent-up demand is met, Brown estimates that a pattern of "flow demand" (i.e., stabilized demand for marriage as new couples form within the gay population) will gradually supplant the bubble caused by pent-up demand. The value of normalized gay marriage "flow" is estimated at $153 million annually. On a graph, revenues generated by same-sex marriage will begin (upon legalization) at approximately $1.7 billion annually and taper through 20 years to $344 million annually, where the graph will reach equilibrium. Brown's is a scientific, persuasive and thorough presentation of the economic benefits that would accrue to the state if it chooses to legalize same-sex marriage. The $4 billion in tourism revenue has a multiplier effect throughout the economy: sales generated, $3.2 billion; increased wealth among Hawaii households, $2.4 billion; jobs generated, 19,000 short term, 3,500 long term; state and county taxes, $440 million. In her argument Brown stresses the importance of "first-mover" states in competition between the states for economic activity, what she calls "competitive federalism". Classically, "first-mover states" are smaller states that have been leaders in law making. For example, Delaware reaped the benefits of its innovative legislation in corporate organization and taxes. Nevada did the same with gambling and prostitution law, and South Dakota did the same with banking law. First-mover states have historically been states with small populations. This, Brown points out, maximizes the benefit of legal innovation to each citizen in the state. She analyzes Hawaii in terms of its size, political climate and tourism potential as a candidate for becoming the nation's "first-mover" on same-sex marriage and compares these qualities to other contender states that might beat Hawaii to the punch: Nevada, New Mexico, and Vermont, which in 1994 enacted a statewide domestic-partnership law and is heavily dependent on tourism. Brown notes the economic arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage, particularly the question of "tipping", whereby Hawaii, in the aftermath of legalizing gay marriage, might be seen as a gay mecca, a perception that might discourage or "tip" other tourists, what she calls "majority consumers", away from Hawaii. A fear of "tipping" prompted Pensacola, Fla., officials to protest loudly when the gay magazine Out declared the city among the top 10 "gay friendly" cities in the country. "We are not gay friendly", one councilman wrote to the local TV station. The mayor chimed in, "The vast majority of people in Pensacola do not want to be recognized as a gay community even if it costs them some economic return." But Brown points out that several well-known gay resort areas, such as Fire Island, N.Y.; Provincetown, Mass.; and Key West, Fla., do not seem to discourage "majority consumers" from visiting Long Island, where Fire Island is located; or Cape Cod, where Provincetown is located; or the Florida Keys. Based on past patterns, gay travelers will tend to gravitate to particular, concentrated resort areas, which would leave the rest of Hawaii to majority consumers. Dan Foley, the plaintiff's attorney in the Baehr v. Lewin gay marriage case [Evan Wolfson of LLDEF is co-counsel with Foley---TR], recounted an anecdote at which another downtown lawyer, commenting on Foley's economic arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage, remarked, "Gay marriage makes gambling look downright respectable." He was referring to the other best hope of lifting Hawaii's economy out of the toilet: legalized gambling. But think about it: If Hawaii legalizes gambling, we will certainly not be a "first-mover" state, and we won't see the benefits, like Nevada did, of pent-up demand. In fact, the news will hardly make the Mainland newspapers, as much as every state that doesn't have it already is currently debating legalizing some form of it. And, if Hawaii's entry into the crowded gambling market does make the news, it will be framed in terms of Hawaii's troubled tourist economy, which has made gambling a necessary evil. The news will translate as an admission of the state's inability to maintain travel-market share simply as HAWAII, once the most famous and dreamed-about vacation destination in the world. With gambling the bloom will definitely be off this rose. If and when Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage, on the other hand, the international newspaper and television coverage will be intense and absolutely priceless, PR-wise: Insignificant little Hawaii, thumbing its nose at the Christian Coalition and the current right-wing drift of the nation, will be an instant hero. Reporters and commentators, reporting live from the beach at Waikiki, will point out Hawaii's longstanding multicultural, multiethnic heritage and its social and political progressivism. Correspondents from the New York Times, the Times of London, Tokyo's Asahi Shinbun and Frankfurt's Frankfurter Allgemeine will trip over themselves trying to describe Hawaii's perfection as a romantic honeymoon destination for any couple, its historic and culturally Polynesian lack of homophobia, its political liberalism and its social benevolence---all ingredients that make Hawaii a true human paradise. end-of-article