E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In “Proposition 8 — The Musical,” Neil Patrick Harris argues “there’s money to be made” — from weddings (and subsequent divorces) if California legalizes same-sex marriage. But my coauthor Jennifer Gerard Brown beat him to the punch.
In “Competitive Federalism and the Legislative Incentives to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage” 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 745 (1995) she:
estimated that the present value of a change in marriage law for the first-mover state could reach three or four billion dollars. [E]ach tourist dollar spent generates additional private income, tax revenue, and jobs. Forbes magazine recently estimated that if same-sex couples currently living together would marry, they would spend $16.8 billion in the first several years following legalization.
Jennifer and I have tried to further harness the potential economic incentives for a state legislature to embrace marriage equality by creating the
Vacation Pledge for Equal Marriage Rights
We, the undersigned, promise to vacation in the first state that democratically chooses (by either legislation or voter referendum) to legalize same-sex marriage within three years of the effective date of the legislation.
Lots of people around the country have been upset about the Prop 8 vote. The vacation pledge gives these people something concrete to do. The pledge lets anyone who supports same-sex marriage commit to an economic thank-you to the first state to legalize by legislation or voter referendum. (You can sign the form here and you can find out more info here.)
Of course, opponents of same-sex marriage can try to organize a vacation boycott against the first state that legalizes same-sex marriage. But there is an important economic asymmetry between boycotts (promises not to buy) and buycotts (promises to buy). There is less than a 5 percent chance that a random person will vacation in a particular state. So a “buycott” potentially moves a 5 percent chance toward a 100 percent vacation probability, while a “boycott” potentially moves a 5 percent chance toward 0 percent. You need a lot more boycotters to equal the same effect as a buycott for the simple reason that most of the boycotters wouldn’t have bought anyway.
Same-sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts. The legislature recently voted to allow out of staters to get married here. Make sure you get here before the apocalypse.
These studies appear to ignore the costs to the state for the subsidy provided for the marriage and then divorce of the prospective same sex couples.
It is also questionable to use states like Massachusetts to extrapolate the results for California. The novelty surge in these early states is unlikely to be duplicated later in CA.
First, nice to see Bart trying to pass his religious bigotry as sensible public policy. That's one of my pet peeves with extremist Christianity, the lack of willingness to stand on principle. Maybe that's because they know their principles are unsound and unjust.
Second, I finally broke down and looked at this vid after seeing a pic in Newsweek, which, in turn, I picked up a the stands so as to show my support for their having printed the cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage". And now, thanks to Ian, I can talk it up here.
I take pride in having more than once linked to Professor Volokh's "Abominable Shrimp" remarks on these very pages. To see JB as JC using the same argument was just too much fun.
Looks like this thread has died, but no doubt I'll have the opportunity to say this more than once: There's something a little disturbing if not downright repugnant about the idea that the most politically effective argument in favor of gay marriage would be economic. Is that really what we've come to? Would we be less in favor of equal rights if they were more expensive?
"There's something a little disturbing if not downright repugnant about the idea that the most politically effective argument in favor of gay marriage would be economic."
Agreed. But that's an unfortunate result of the abomination known as Law and Economics.
I think the economic argument isn't the most compelling, but do think it might be important along the margins. Self-interest often counts there and elsewhere.
Also, I think the "shrimp" argument overblown. The NT makes clear that Christians need not follow mosaic law. In fact, see Acts 15, few obligations were set for them. And, even there, later interpretations watered them down further.
One clear rule is "sexual immorality." Paul, who didn't think Christians had to worry about shrimp, worried about that too. This included gender rules and sexuality. It also involved divorce and fornication (and women speaking out in church), which anti-gay sorts seem less worried about.
So, to quote Jack Black, they "pick and choose." But, citing Leviticus won't really fly.
There's something a little disturbing if not downright repugnant about the idea that the most politically effective argument in favor of gay marriage would be economic.
It may not be the most politically effective argument. It may, however, be the most relevant argument to its venue (Freakonomics).