In the courtroom yesterday proponents of gay marriage pointed to the loss of revenue resulting from Proposition 8.
One of the most popular arguments for the legalization of marijuana in California is the potential tax revenue that it would bring in. That same argument made its way to the courtroom yesterday, as proponents of gay marriage pointed to the loss of revenue resulting from Proposition 8. Economist Edmund Egan of San Francisco argued that his city alone could gain as much as $35 million per year, based on estimates from the 5,000 marriages that already took place before the ban was enacted. He argued that the money would come from everything from reception costs to sales taxes to hotel expenditures by the wedding parties.
Attorney Peter Paterson, who is defending Prop 8, challenged the figures and asked whether domestic partnerships might not have the same benefits. He also claimed that the argument was temporary, calling it a reflection of a “pent-up demand” and arguing that the numbers would drop. Egan concurred that his projections only covered the next few years.
The star witness of the afternoon session was Professor Ilan Meyer of Columbia. He argued that the ban, along with its concomitant results, “evokes social disapproval” for gay people. “It certainly doesn’t send a message, ‘It’s ok, you can be who you want to be.’ It sends the opposite message,” he testified. This, in turn, results in higher levels of stress among gay people, violating their equal protection under the law.
Attorney Howard Nielson, arguing in support of Prop 8, challenged Meyer’s research and asked whether Meyer had compared the mental health of gays and lesbians in California with that of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. Meyer responded that his research was conducted on a national level, and that he did not have the specific figures for Massachusetts. Read more at the Los Angeles Times and the Mercury News.
