When President Obama embraced same-sex marriage last week, he tried to frame it as an issue for the states to resolve. But federal laws and policies are very much front and center in the battle for a level financial playing field for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans – especially seniors. And the Obama administration is taking a more active role in that battle than the president let on in his historic interview.

One of the key pocketbook issues is that it is impossible for LGBT couples to access the valuable spousal, survivor and death benefits from Social Security, although they pay the same FICA taxes as heterosexual workers, and are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty than heterosexual seniors. Average Social Security benefits are 32 percent lower for LGBT couples than for heterosexual couples, according to The Williams Institute, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy at the UCLA School of Law.

The Social Security problems center on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. Under Social Security’s rules, spouses can receive the greater of their own benefit or half of a spouse’s benefit. And a surviving spouse can receive the greater of his or her own benefit, or 100 percent of the spouse’s benefit.

No states had enacted same-sex marriage laws before the passage of the DOMA during the Clinton years. Now, in a state such as Massachusetts, it’s possible to have two couples – one straight, one gay – both with the same marriage papers. One couple can access Social Security’s spousal and survivor benefits, but the other can’t.

The Obama administration views that as a clear violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and has said it won’t defend DOMA, which is facing several court challenges and may find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On another front, a move is afoot to change the Social Security Act itself. A coalition of advocacy groups has proposed the Social Security Equality Act, which would let couples in relationships recognized by their state of residence to receive the same Social Security benefits as heterosexual married couples. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez, a Democrat from California, would recognize domestic partnership, civil union and marriage.

Last week, the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare proposed removing gender-specific definitions of the words “husband” and “wife” in the Act as part of a broader proposal to enhance and reform Social Security benefits.

Medicare and Medicaid Rules:
Same-sex couples also face financial trouble with their healthcare when they are seniors. Eligibility for Medicare is based on the number of quarters in which you have paid payroll taxes into the system. At age 65, anyone with a work history of at least 40 quarters can enroll for Medicare Part A (hospitalization) without paying a premium. Everyone pays a premium for Part B (doctors’ visits), Part D (prescription drugs) or a supplemental medical policy. But access to the entire program is predicated on Part A enrollment.

You can also enroll without paying a premium if a spouse qualifies.

But DOMA means that a legally married LGBT same-sex spouse lacking those 40 quarters must take the other route into Medicare – buying into the system by paying a hefty Part A premium out of pocket. This year, the monthly Part A premium is $451 for those with less than 30 quarters in the system.

The problems extend to access to social services, nutrition, housing and nursing home care. LGBT seniors are twice as likely to be single and up to four times more likely to be without children than their heterosexual counterparts, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

“There are issues around caregiving and social isolation,” says Aaron Tax, director of federal government relations for Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders, also known as SAGE. “Pile onto that their lower incomes, benefits discrimination and higher poverty rates, poor health and access to health care.”

Tax notes that the Obama administration has been making changes in a range of policy areas without much fanfare.

For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced new rules this year banning LGBT discrimination in federal housing programs. The Obama administration also has taken a number of steps to address inequalities in healthcare.

In that same vein, Medicaid has rules aimed at preventing healthy spouses from having to impoverish themselves in order for the ill spouse to qualify for Medicaid; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued guidelines to states on how the spousal protections can be extended to LGBT couples.

A key goal for SAGE and other advocates is to gain recognition for LGBT issues in the Older Americans Act (OAA), which has been up for reauthorization by Congress since last year, and is the main vehicle for funding nutrition and social services for seniors.

The goal is to add language compelling local social services agencies receiving federal funding under OAA to reach out to LGBT seniors to raise awareness about available services and create a welcoming atmosphere for them.

Meanwhile, the White House sponsored a first-ever LGBT Conference on Aging earlier this month in Miami, which addressed issues in healthcare, housing and economic security issues.

“The conference had a lot of symbolic value,” Tax says. “It really was a sign of the times that this population has unique needs that need to be met, especially as the number of LGBT elders increases.”

Source

Much has been made of the political implications of President Barack Obama’s announcement this week that he personally supports gay marriage. The news had hardly broken in Washington before conversations quickly turned to what it means for the 2012 election.

Some tea-party conservatives seemed sure it would cost him the re-election. Some analysts saw a fundraising boon and a way to fire up his base. Others said it would fire up his opponents.

But as commentators debate the impacts of Mr. Obama’s words, a few things are clear. Polls show a growing acceptance of gay marriage in the U.S. And Census data show the number of same-sex households is a growing across the nation.

Look at the two maps below derived from an analysis of Census 2010 data by Gary J. Gates of UCLA’s Williams Institute. The top shows the number of same-sex households in the U.S. by county in 2000. The bottom shows those households in 2010.

Click here for 2000 and 2010 maps.

That map gets a lot more purple between 2000 and 2010. And that’s not just because places with many same-sex households got more of them, but also because same-sex households expanded into more places over that time.

Mr. Gates believes that in some of those very dark rural counties – like those in rural north and south – the high numbers are due to small sample sizes combined with large households where Census surveys were likely filled out incorrectly. But even taking those mistallies into account, the trend is unmistakable.

What this all means for 2012 is not completely clear, but when you break down those county numbers into Patchwork Nation’s 12 geographic/demographic county types, some interesting patterns emerge. There are three county types that sit well above the national average for same-sex households – the big city Industrial Metropolis, collegiate Campus and Careers and the wealthy Monied Burbs. Those three types have, respectively, 7.4, 6.4 and 6.3 same-sex households per 1,000. The national county average is 5.5 same-sex households per 1,000.

That means people in those counties are more likely to know gay and lesbian couples and they are probably more likely be sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage. A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey from 2008 broken down with Patchwork Nation’s county types found that 60 percent of the people who live in those three county types said “homosexuality as a way of life should be accepted.”

That’s potentially very significant for 2012. Democrats always win the Campus and Careers and Industrial Metropolis counties by large amounts, but Monied Burbs can be close and are often decisive. In other words, gay marriage could be a wedge issue in the suburbs that helps Mr. Obama and hurts presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who supports a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

The Patchwork Nation breakdown also shows there are some places where Mr. Obama’s gay marriage announcement likely won’t go over well. In the culturally conservative Evangelical Epicenters, agricultural Tractor Country counties and the Mormon Outposts, the number of same-sex households is far below the national average – 3.3, 2.2 and 2.1 households per 1,000 respectively. But any losses in those places aren’t likely to matter to Mr. Obama. He will almost certainly lose in them by large margins.

And while there have been question of whether Mr. Obama’s support of gay marriage could hurt him with African Americans, in the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll 64% of blacks said a candidate’s gay marriage position would not affect their vote – 12 points higher than the similar figure for whites.

But the real 2012 issue for Mr. Obama may lie in states like Colorado, Florida and Ohio. A few thousand votes here or there could be the difference between winning and losing those states. What do these same-sex household numbers tell us about the impact of his statement on that critical turf? It might help him on the whole – those states have more same-sex households than average when taken together – but the individual pictures are a bit more complicated.

For instance, his new stance would arguably help him in Colorado where there are many same-sex households around populous Denver. It might help him in southern Florida, but it wouldn’t in the north – where there are many Evangelical Epicenters – and the I-4 corridor in the state’s center is hard to judge.

And in Ohio, which many analysts consider a true anyone-could-win tossup, the announcement might hurt Mr. Obama. Ohio has many small-town Service Worker Center counties that lean Republican, but that can also provide Democrats with many votes. Those counties have lower numbers of same-sex households and, in national surveys, they tend to be less sympathetic to “homosexuality as a way of life.”

Does that mean Mr. Obama would have to write off those counties in Ohio or Florida’s I-4 corridor now? Or that he has Colorado sewn up? Not at all. While Gay marriage is the topic de jour, this election still figures to be about the economy. And past polls have also shown that gay marriage simply doesn’t rate high on the list of issues people vote on (though those polls were taken pre-announcement).

What it does mean is the 2012 campaign has a new wrinkle and national figures concerning “what people think about gay marriage” aren’t going to matter as much as the individual circumstances on the ground in different communities. And those communities and their understanding of the issue are changing fast.

Click here for the print version.

Source

Last weekend, former President Bill Clinton took to North Carolina phone lines with a recorded message warning of the perils of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions. “What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs,” Mr. Clinton asserted. “If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened.”

That argument landed with a thud, as North Carolina voters resoundingly supported the amendment by a margin of 20 percentage points, and 93 of the state’s 100 counties voted for the proposition that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Notwithstanding President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage this week, North Carolina joins 30 other states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage that now stretch in an uninterrupted swath from Florida to Oregon.

Mr. Clinton’s message that constitutional bans on same-sex marriage are bad for business hardly seems self-evident. North Carolina is perennially ranked at or near the top of the best states in which to do business. Two of its major rivals for the top honor, Texas and Virginia, also have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages and civil unions, and Virginia even bans “any marriage-like contract” between unmarried persons. Gay marriage-tolerant New York and Massachusetts usually rank at or near the bottom.

If banning same-sex unions is really bad for business, no one would know it from major North Carolina corporations, whose silence was deafening. In contrast was New York, where Goldman Sachs’s chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, appeared in a video supporting gay marriage, and other businesses openly and enthusiastically supported the campaign to legalize it. In Washington State, Microsoft, Starbucks, Nike and Amazon have all supported it, too. But not one of the 15 Fortune 500 corporations based in North Carolina did. These include such major national companies as Bank of America, Lowe’s, Nucor, VF Corporation (best known for its Wrangler and Timberland brands) and BB&T Corporation.

Moreover, “there’s little or no evidence that same-sex couples consider the issue of lesbian-bisexual-gay-transgender laws in deciding where to move,” Gary Gates told me this week. Mr. Gates is a demographer, co-author of the book “The Gay and Lesbian Atlas” and distinguished fellow at the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, which studies lesbian-bisexual-gay-transgender issues. “Their patterns look like the broader patterns in the U.S. They’re moving south and west. For everyone who moves, the main reason is for a job. Even for the L.G.B.T. community, the top issue is the job. Marriage rights are secondary.”

And yet there’s mounting evidence that a state’s support for gay marriage yields important benefits for business, especially with the younger, highly educated, affluent population avidly courted by most employers. Brian Ellner, who led the successful Human Rights Campaign for marriage equality in New York, said, “We heard over and over from the C.E.O.’s of major corporations that they don’t want any impediments to recruiting the best people, period, whether they’re people who want to live in a tolerant city or state or gay people who want to live where they feel their families will be protected and safe.”

He described business support in New York as enormously important. “They’re the job creators and the engines of the economy and so important to the health and well-being of the state. And they were on our side.”

In Washington State, where gay marriages are scheduled to begin June 7 unless opponents gather enough signatures to force a referendum, major employers have been sounding similar themes. Starbucks said in January as the state Legislature was considering allowing gay marriage that it “strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion.” Microsoft, the first Fortune 500 company to provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits in 1993, said, “Washington’s employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families” as states that permit same-sex marriage. “Employers in the technology sector,” it went on, “face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent.”

In response, the anti-gay-marriage National Organization for Marriage called in March for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks that so far seems to have had scant effect. Starbucks revenue grew 15 percent in the most recent quarter, to a record $3.2 billion.

“It would be great if they were taking a stand because it’s the right thing to do,” said Mr. Gates, the demographer who lives with his husband in Seattle. “But they understand that marriage equality is a mechanism for them to attract and retain talent. It’s not just about gay people, because the truth is, there aren’t enough gay people to make a huge impact. But it signals a kind of openness to people who are different. It sends a signal to people, straight or gay, that this is a place where they can potentially thrive. That’s especially critical for companies that rely on people who have to be creative, entrepreneurial and innovative.”

There is data to suggest that members of the so-called “creative class,” a phrase coined by Richard Florida in his 2003 book “The Rise of the Creative Class,” with an updated version due next month, are disproportionately influenced by a state’s attitude on issues like gay marriage. This group, which Mr. Florida estimates at more than 35 million people, tend to be mobile, affluent and well-educated. “These people have choices,” Mr. Ellner noted, “and if you’re gay and you can be married in New York or Boston, would you opt for that over North Carolina? Of course you would.”

Mr. Florida, now a professor at the University of Toronto, and Mr. Gates collaborated on a 2002 study for the Brookings Institution, called “Technology and Tolerance: Diversity and High Tech Growth.” The two concluded that “perhaps our most striking finding is that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area’s high-technology success is a large gay population.” They continued, “Frequently cited as a harbinger of redevelopment and gentrification in distressed urban neighborhoods, the presence of gays in a metro area signals a diverse and progressive environment.” They noted that the five metro areas with the highest concentration of gay residents — San Francisco, Washington, Austin, Atlanta, and San Diego — are among the nation’s top 15 high-tech areas.

“Why the correlation? It’s not that gays and lesbians equal economic growth or are more entrepreneurial,” Professor Florida told me this week, “but because places that are open-minded and diverse attract people who are original thinkers, and these communities percolate with entrepreneurial and creative ideas.”

Typical of such areas is Raleigh-Durham, site of the North Carolina’s vaunted Research Triangle, and located in one of the few counties that voted against the ban on gay marriage. “The Triangle is tolerant and has a long legacy as a home to colleges and universities where gays and lesbians are welcome,” Professor Florida said. “I wouldn’t doubt that they’re up in arms. North Carolina has just put itself further beyond the eight ball.”

Jim Rogers, the chief executive of Duke Energy, with its headquarters in Charlotte, was one of the few executives in the state to speak out against the amendment, though he stressed he was giving his personal views and not speaking for Duke Energy. “I’m old-fashioned,” he told an audience at the Carmel Country Club in April. “I believe we’re all the children of God, and we shouldn’t have special rules for some and not for others. I will go a step further. If this amendment passes, we’re going to look back 20 years from now or 10 years from now, and we’re going to think about that amendment the same way we think about the Jim Crow laws that were passed in this state many, many years ago.” He added, “We’re competing with people around the world. We’ve got to be inclusive and open.”

Stuart Campbell, the executive director of Equality, a gay lobbying group in North Carolina that campaigned against the amendment, said the North Carolina vote sent the wrong message. “If I was offered a job in a state that was actively hostile to gays and lesbian, I’d have second thoughts about taking the job.” He said 80 North Carolina businesses opposed the amendment to ban gay marriage, and many business leaders spoke privately in opposition to it. But only one company — the privately owned Replacements Inc., which sells silver, china and glassware and has a gay founder and chief executive — publicly opposed the amendment. “Given that this is a Southern state in the Bible belt, there is still a concern among business leaders about not getting out in front of social issues.” Mr. Campbell said. “It’s not Washington or New York.”

Source

President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage this week propelled the controversial social issue back into the national spotlight, just six months before the November elections. But while politicians and pundits debate the ethical and religious implications, advisers point out that the costs of marriage – and its ugly flipside, divorce – are soaring, even as many Americans’ salaries remain stagnant.

First, the positive spin. At the state and national level, experts say more marriage is a good thing, from a financial standpoint at least. Indeed, some studies suggest that if the right of same-sex couples to wed were granted nationally, the policy could generate hundreds of millions in extra revenue. For example, one study conducted this year by the  Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA estimated that New Jersey would generate $48 million to $119 million over three years if same-sex marriage was allowed. The gains would come mostly from the spending on the weddings themselves, although some experts say these couples could put more money into the economy over time, due to long-term savings from filing joint tax returns.

But for couples – straight and gay – marriage can mean higher costs, especially when it leads to divorce. One big reason for the spike, say experts, is that marriage and divorce now come with even more financial strings attached. For example, more than half of divorce attorneys say they have seen a rise in women paying child support over the past three years, according to a new survey from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. And nearly half have seen a rise in women paying alimony. “Everything has gotten more expensive,” says Michael Goodman, a certified public accountant and president of Wealthstream Advisors in New York City.

SmartMoney.com talked to financial planners, accountants and other experts to find out ways that saying “I do” means more spending now (or later if you decide you don’t).

The big day itself is getting cheaper: average total spending dropped about 3% last year to $25,631, according to The Wedding Report, a market research firm. With inflation, it’s closer to a 6% decline. But where it once was traditional for the bride’s family to shoulder all wedding costs, it’s now typical for the happy couple to be on the hook for at least some — if not all — of that bill, says Matthew Saneholtz, a certified financial planner with Tobias Financial Advisors in Plantation, Fla. “We’re seeing there’s more equality there,” he says. Wedding spending isn’t universally down, either. Average spending in the New York metro area was up slightly last year, to $33,387 on average. And nationwide, spending is up more than 20% on expenses like ceremony and reception locations, full-service wedding planning and engagement photography.

In this tough economy, consumers may find alimony to be an increasingly large burden on their finances. Several states, including New Jersey and Connecticut, are considering reforms that would place limits on alimony and allow for more modifications after the fact, based on the exes’ financial situations. In March, a new Massachusetts law took effect that limits many alimony payouts based on the marriage duration — a 10-year marriage, for example, permits a maximum of six years. Currently, many leave it to a judge’s discretion, which experts say can be tough to appeal. Although more consumers are asking for reassessments based on financial hardship, filing for bankruptcy or foreclosing on a home often fails to change the status quo. “The court sees it as freeing up more money, so they are in a better position to pay alimony,” says Kenneth Altshuler, the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Increasingly, women find themselves subject to paying up, too. Some 47% of divorce attorneys saw a rise in women paying alimony over the past three years, according to a new survey from the AAML.

Deciding what to do with the house has become a bigger financial issue for divorcing couples, says Carole Peck, certified divorce financial analyst and the owner of Carole Peck Financial Center near Chicago. At the end of 2011, 23% of residential properties with a mortgage were underwater, according to CoreLogic. That means exes may need to come up with extra cash to cover the shortfall if they want to sell, or more equity to refinance if one of them wants to stay in the home and assume responsibility for the loan. In the latter case, it may still be both parties shelling out cash, she says. Otherwise, the home could remain a joint asset for a longer period, which is usually something neither person wants.

Someone entering a second marriage after getting a divorce or being widowed has more to lose these days, financially speaking, says Ted Sarenski, the chief executive and president of Blue Ocean Strategic Capital in Syracuse, N.Y. Alimony, Social Security and pension benefits from the previous spouse may all dwindle — or cease altogether. Losses could total thousands per month: Social Security benefit amounts for many recipients increased 3.6% this year, in the agency’s first cost-of-living adjustment since 2009, and as previously mentioned, alimony payments are both high and pervasive. On top of that, higher incomes from years of working could mean spouses may owe more in taxes filing jointly than they would collectively as singles, Sarenski says. The combined losses are so great for some adults that they’re opting to skip remarriage altogether. “They just don’t see the benefits of doing it,” he says.

When spouses divorce, the more moneyed of the two often ends up on the hook not just for child support, but for college costs as well, says Goodman. That obligation gets steadily more expensive. For the 2011-2012 academic year, the total cost to attend a four-year private college averaged $38,589, up more than 4% from the previous year, according to the College Board. At four-year public colleges, it’s $29,657, up 5%. And the College Board reports those increases are coming at higher rates relative to previous decades. Goodman says exes may shoulder more collectively, too, because the arrangement often means they aren’t pushing for a less-expensive school or considering additional student loans as a married couple might.

Source

It’s not just an issue of love or even politics: States that legalize gay marriage also experience a significant economic boost.

There are 646,464 same-sex couples in the U.S. but only about 50,000 same-sex couples have married, according to the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA.

If more states legalize gay marriage, all of that pent-up demand could trigger a wedding boom, sparking economic activity as more couples book venues, buy wedding cakes, jewelry and marriage licenses, and secure hotel rooms for guests.

Couples spend $27,021 on average on a wedding, according to a survey of gay and straight newlyweds by TheKnot.com. Although same-sex couples generally spend less, that still leaves room for a significant windfall to the $74 billion wedding industry if more couples marry.

Gay marriage is currently legal in seven spots, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and D.C.

Already those economies have benefited as a result. “In New York, we saw what legalizing gay marriage could do for a city,” said Kristin Koch, TheKnot.com’s senior editor. “Weddings mean more business for hotels, wedding venues, caterers, airlines, bakeries, photographers and videographers.”

In New York, the city’s comptroller’s office estimated that the economic impact of marriage equality would add $142 million to New York City’s economy from wedding-related purchases and tourism revenue in the three years after its law passed in 2011, and another $184 million in spending to the state’s economy.

In Massachusetts, the Williams Institute estimated that marriage equality added $111 million to the state’s economy in the first five years after legalizing same-sex marriages in 2004. That’s thanks to wedding spending by same-sex couples who live there, in addition to an influx of same-sex couples coming from elsewhere to say “I do.”

Other states that give same-sex couples the right to marry will experience a similar boon, said Lee Badgett, the Williams Institute’s research director and professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“There’s nothing bad that’s going to happen to local economies; in fact, there’s a positive business effect,” Badgett said.

President Obama’s support of marriage equality for same-sex couples could spur more states to allow gay couples to legally marry and the eventual repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 federal law that reserves marriage for a man and a woman.

If same-sex marriage rights were granted nationwide, same-sex weddings would generate a net $1 billion each year for the Federal budget over the next 10 years, according to a 2004 report by Congressional Budget Office. That’s after taking into account lower income and estate tax revenues as well as increased spending for health-care benefits and Social Security.

Source

Republicans have responded to President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality by passing an amendment hours later reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and including two moreanti-LGBT amendments in a defense bill.

Some members of the party, however, just want to ignore the issue altogether. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has supported using taxpayer funds to defend DOMA, dismissed the focus on marriage equality as a distraction from important concerns like jobs and the economy:

The speaker suggested the reignited debate over gay marriage is a distraction to other legislative business on Capitol Hill, especially considering the state of the economy.

“Republicans here on Capitol Hill are focused in on the economy,” he said. “The American people are still asking the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ and our focus is going to continue to be on the economy like it has been for the last year and a half.”

But if jobs and the economy are the Speaker’s focus, he might be pleased to learn that legalizing same-sex marriage has had a strong positive impact on state and local economies, brought in money for tourism, lodging and wedding planning, and offered much-needed relief to state budgets:

– MASSACHUSETTS: A 2009 study found that “marriages have had a positive economic effect on Massachusetts -– likely providing a boost of over $100 million to the state economy.” “Same-sex couples’ weddings injected significant spending into the Massachusetts economy and brought out-of-state guests to the state, whose spending also added to the economic boost,” it concluded.

– IOWA: Last year, a study found that same-sex marriages brought as much as $13 million in new spending to Iowa in the year since the state Supreme Court overturned a ban.

– MARYLAND: A report last month from the Maryland Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce found that the recently passed marriage equality law could boost the state’s economy by $90 million a year if it survives a November referendum.

– ILLINOIS: In March, a study from the Williams Institute predicted that legalizing marriage equality would boost Illinois’ economy by between $39 and $72 million over three years, and bring in as much as $8 million in tax revenue.

– NEW JERSEY: The Williams Institute also found that legalizing marriage equality in New Jersey could add $119 million to the state’s economy over three years, along with $8 million in tax revenue.

– RHODE ISLAND: One state that has not legalized same-sex marriage, Rhode Island, could be losing as much as $8 million a year. Why? Because same-sex couples simply travel to Massachusetts to get married. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state but only allows civil unions within its borders.

– NATIONALLY: A CBO report found that repealing DOMA could actually improve the federal budget by just under $1 billion in each of the next ten years, but only if marriage equality was legal in all fifty states and recognized by the federal government.

Source

In the political fallout of President Barack Obama’s shift to support same-sex marriage, analysts say the move may signal a remarkable change in his campaign’s re-election strategy, one that no longer courts the moderate part of his Democratic base.

The president could see his steepest loss of support with more conservative Democrats or the so-called Reagan Democrats — those who are typically white, older and living in rural areas, said Ron Brownstein, CNN contributor and the National Journal’s editorial director.

Many of them also fall into key swing states, like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Indiana.

“This is an acknowledgment that those voters are largely gone, and the president and the Democrats have to respond to a different coalition: Younger voters. More socially liberal. White collar voters,” Brownstein said. “This is a reflection of his understanding that that is now the coalition that is going to elect him and that he needs to respond to.”

Indeed, recent congressional shifts show this sector of the party to be thinning out. Also known as Blue Dog Democrats, the group’s coalition dramatically lost numbers in Congress over the years.

Prior to 2010, there were 54 members in the House Blue Dog caucus. By the end of 2011, there were 25. Two more lost primary battles in Pennsylvania last month, raising questions as to whether the more moderate Democrats will be forced to swing further to the left this cycle.

While Republican and Democratic lawmakers unleashed a flurry of statements following the president’s comments Wednesday, many members of the Blue Dog Coalition remained relatively quiet.

Another group of concern for Obama, political observers say, may be African-American evangelicals, a section within the base that traditionally comes down socially conservative on same-sex relationships. The group played a big role this week in voting for the North Carolina ballot initiative that places a constitutional ban on same-gender marriage.

Carlton Pearson, an African-American pastor from Chicago and widely known supporter of LGBT rights, said he received a wave of phone calls and texts from pastors Wednesday after the president’s interview, several of whom had mixed reactions to the news.

“Many don’t support marriage, but they support the president,” Pearson said Wednesday on CNN. “Others support both, because they realize that their congregations are filled with gender loving people and their staffs.”

Person added the community is “conflicted,” not necessarily because of Biblical reasons, but because of potential economic liabilities.

“A lot of preachers actually don’t have a theological issue,” he said. “It’s a business decision. They can’t afford to lose their parishioners and their parsonages and salaries. They stay quiet.”

In the end, however, experts doubt this will become a big wedge issue for Obama and the black community, which turned out in droves for the then-Illinois senator in 2008.

“I think the African American community, even those who disagree with him, will still be there,” said Paul Begala, a CNN contributor and senior adviser for a pro-Obama super PAC.

Most political observers argue Obama’s clarified stance will undoubtedly help shore up a major part of his liberal base that has largely felt alienated by his murky language on the issue over the years.

Prior to his Wednesday announcement, Obama’s official position was that he was “evolving” on the issue, having once opposed it. Given the even split among Americans on the topic, political strategists say the president had no choice but to walk a fine line.

Marriage-equality activists say they hope the president’s words will have a trailblazing effect, but recognize he’s still limited — both politically and legally — in making a sizable impact on the movement.

“I don’t expect him to be out there campaigning on this every day,” Evan Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said on CNN. “But I think the president’s words will reverberate across kitchen tables across the country, in the hearts and minds of people who are wrestling with this.”

Obama’s changed position may affect not only his own campaign, but his opponent’s as well. Some Republicans argue it could be a political gift for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has struggled throughout the campaign to animate his conservative base, as his primary opponents consistently showered him with criticism of being too moderate.

The president’s announcement gave Romney a chance to forcefully reiterate his opposition to same-sex marriage, even articulating a stance further to the right of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

“My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference,” he told reporters in Oklahoma. “I know other people have differing views.”

In an interview earlier in the day, he said he supports domestic partnership benefits and hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. However, in the past, Romney has expressed support for a federal amendment banning gay marriage and has said that he, unlike Obama, would stage a legal fight for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, said this issue could be a key benchmark in Romney’s quest to convince those on the far-right of his conservative credentials.

“The president, I think, has handed to Mitt Romney the one missing piece in his campaign, and that is the intensity and motivation that Mitt Romney needs among social conservatives to win this election,” Perkins said on CNN. “And I think this could be the piece.”

Whether Obama will be damaged by accusations of “flip-flopping” on the issue remains to be seen.

“It’s going to be really interesting to see how this plays out,” said Frank Bruni, a consumer activist and the first openly gay New York Times’ op-ed columnist. “Does it make Barack Obama a flip-flopper? A little bit of one. But you show me a politician that’s not a flip-flopper.”

He added: “I don’t find the flip-flop stuff when we direct it at Mitt Romney to be the most compelling line of argument because I think politics is an arena of much flip-flopping.”

However, recent polling shows same-sex marriage to be low on voters’ minds. According to a Pew Research Center survey released in April, only 28% of voters described it as a “very important issue” this election year.

Jennifer Pizer, legal director at The Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation, law and public policy at UCLA, said she would be surprised if the issue comes into play this fall, despite its appearance on states’ ballots and the president’s changed position.

“I suspect the issue might have played some role in North Carolina, which will be contested,” she told CNN in an e-mail. “But with the marriage vote having happened just now, it seems unlikely to still be much on voters’ minds six months from now.”

While Obama’s comments may fuel ongoing discussion among pundits and politicos, she said, she doubts voters will view the issue as a highly important one this fall.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans already enjoy the right to marry the person they wish to marry, and are not directly affected by laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying,” she said. “Those laws just don’t affect their families, let alone their jobs, their children’s schools, or whether they are able to take loved ones to the doctor.”

Source

President Barack Obama made public on Wednesday a new stance that same-sex marriage should be legal – a move that has an important symbolic effect, UCLA legal professors say, but will not significantly change lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legislation or the presidential election.

The announcement was made during an interview with ABC News following similar statements by members of the Obama administration. This past week, Vice President Joe Biden publicized his support of same-sex marriage, as did Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Obama is the first president to support same-sex marriage in office. He said his views evolved on an issue he had long struggled with.

“I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth,” Obama said during the interview.

The announcement comes at a time when proponents of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, are planning to file another appeal to reverse the most recent court ruling that determined the legislation unconstitutional. In February, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a previous federal court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but the legislation has not yet been reversed.

Although no moves have yet been made, proponents of Proposition 8 can appeal the decision to a higher court.

Nancy Polikoff, a UCLA law professor and faculty chair of the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, which conducts research on gender identity and sexual orientation issues, said that while the president’s endorsement is symbolically powerful, his new stance will not affect current same-sex marriage legislations.

The Obama administration has already exercised its power to support same-sex marriage to its full extent, Polikoff said.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced its position that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

Efforts to repeal the act are underway in Congress, but beyond taking a stance against the legislation, the president does not have control over the repeal process, and a repeal is unlikely to occur until Democrats can regain control of the House of Representatives, Polikoff said.

“Obama has already done what he could do in this area (of same-sex marriage) for federal and law purposes,” Polikoff said.

In addition, the president does not have the power to force states into allowing same-sex marriage, said law Professor Gary Gates.

The announcement comes at a time when four states, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington, are planning to vote on legalizing or banning same-sex marriage in the November election.

“(The announcement) confirms what people have suspected – that he has been the most supportive of the presidents on this issue,” Gates said.

Gates said he does not think Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage will significantly affect the outcome of the presidential election.

“What stops swing voters (from voting against Obama) is that they either support marriage equality or are indifferent to the issue,” Gates said.

But Sally Lee, a fourth-year biology student who does not support same-sex marriage, said that the president’s move will factor into her vote in the November election, although she is currently undecided.

Lee Jasperse, a third-year English and psychology student, said he thinks the announcement will positively support UCLA student voter turnout in the upcoming election.

“A lot of LGBT voters and allies on campus will probably be mobilized to vote for Obama,” Jasperse said.

Source

In an election year that some pundits have predicted will be focused on jobs and the economy, social issues like same-sex marriage have stolen the spotlight a surprising number of times. But experts say don’t expect those hot-button topics to be the ultimate markers of the 2012 cycle.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama officially came out in support of the right of Americans to marry same-sex partners, ending a streak of ambiguity over his position that has long perplexed supporters of marriage equality.

“I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News.

His now-evolved statement came one day after North Carolina became the latest Southern state to pass an amendment banning same sex-marriage and domestic partnerships. Obama’s campaign issued a statement last month opposing the amendment.

But pressure had grown on the White House to go further after Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday, in response to a question on a talk show, that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same sex-marriage. Obama had said only that his position was “evolving” after having once opposed same-sex marriage.

On Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan also showed support for same-sex marriage. Marriage-equality advocates quickly pounced on the statement, ramping up pressure on Obama to do so as well.

“Standing up for the freedom to marry is not just the right thing to do, it’s the right thing politically, and it’s time for the president to stand on the right side of history,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group.

Political observers say the president was simply playing smart politics. With a Gallup poll showing the country is split over the issue — 50% of voters support the practice, while 48% oppose — Obama had a fine line to walk in terms of political impact.

“While this president can point to successes in advancing gay civil rights, much more than I think any other president, that final step (of endorsing same-sex marriage) would leave him open to a series of negative attacks that could really alienate swing voters,” CNN political contributor John Avlon said Tuesday, before the president made his statement.

Several other states are dealing with the issue this year. Washington, Maryland, Colorado and Maine have passed or are poised to pass legislation in favor of same-sex marriage, while Minnesota will vote on a ballot initiative similar to North Carolina’s.

Analysts say the move could prove to be risky for the president this fall, especially in key swing states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, which have strong conservative bases and demographics that might take issue with the president’s stance.

“It’s going to have some political cost for him,” predicted Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor. “He will lose some Reagan Democrats, the cultural blue-collar Reagan Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina and Pennsylvania — important swing states.”

But some argue the move was a bold one, which could poll well among independents looking for “conviction” in the White House.

“You’ll never agree with everybody on every issue, but now he’s taken the position that is clearly in his heart,” Paul Begala, a senior adviser for the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, told CNN. “People admire a ‘conviction politician,’ and I think he can stand proud on that.”

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney reiterated his position on the issue after Obama’s interview on Wednesday, drawing a stark contrast with that of the president.

“My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference,” he told reporters in Oklahoma. “I know other people have differing views.”

In an interview earlier in the day, he said he supported domestic partnership benefits and hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. However, in the past, Romney has expressed support for a federal amendment banning gay marriage and has said that he, unlike Obama, would defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

This isn’t the first time a social issue has appeared front and center this cycle. In February, the Obama administration’s so-called contraception mandate sparked a wave of opposition from Republicans, who decried a requirement that institutions affiliated with religions include contraception coverage in their health care plans.

The outcry ultimately influenced the administration to amend its proposal so that insurance companies, not the institutions, would pay for contraception coverage.

That episode was part of a larger Democratic-led narrative that paints the GOP as waging a “war on women.” As another example, Democrats point to a bill recently signed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell that requires any woman desiring to undergo an abortion to first be given an ultrasound test.

Hitting back, Republicans seized on comments made by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, who last month criticized Ann Romney for having “never worked a day in her life” as a stay-at-home mother. The GOP argued her comments reflected a cultural bias among Democrats against Republicans.

But will same-sex marriage prove to be a key issue in the presidential election?

With a number of states voting this year on the issue, experts say it will probably make a few more headlines but will unlikely be the biggest issue of 2012.

The fact that North Carolina, a traditionally conservative state, voted to pass the amendment is no surprise and indicates little about voters’ attitudes on same-sex marriage, said Professor Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern University Law School. But if social issues do play a prominent role this cycle, Obama would come out ahead in the resulting debate, said Koppelman, who has done extensive research on the legal implications of same-sex marriage.

“People who feel most strongly about same-sex marriage are either strong Democrats or strong Republicans,” he said. “The people who could go either way are people who are worried about the economy. If the economy does not look like the winner for Romney, it’s hard to imagine him pulling it out with this.”

Koppelman said Obama’s support for same-sex marriage will likely energize his base — but he added that the statement is about all the president can do in terms of affecting the issue.

“Ultimately, it’s up to the courts to decide,” he said. “Really, all that he can do is try to be an opinion leader here. He hasn’t got any real power.”

A Pew Research Center survey in April showed same-sex marriage to be low on voters’ minds, with the issue coming in dead last out of the 18 topics listed. Only 28% of voters described it as a “very important issue” this election year.

Jennifer Pizer, legal director at The Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation, law and public policy at UCLA, said she would be surprised if the issue comes into play this fall, despite its appearance on states’ ballots and the president’s changed position.

“I suspect the issue might have played some role in North Carolina, which will be contested,” she told CNN in an e-mail. “But with the marriage vote having happened just now, it seems unlikely to still be much on voters’ minds six months from now.”

She added that Obama’s comments may fuel ongoing discussion among pundits and politicos, but doubts voters will view the issue as a highly important one this fall.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans already enjoy the right to marry the person they wish to marry, and are not directly affected by laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying,” she said. “Those laws just don’t affect their families, let alone their jobs, their children’s schools, or whether they are able to take loved ones to the doctor.”

Source

President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage today may prove to be a fiscal as well as a social and civil-rights issue. In an election likely to focus on the nation’s sluggish economic growth and high unemployment, experts say gay marriage has financial implications as well.

Marriage policy may be governed by the states, but if the right of same-sex couples to wed were granted nationally, the policy could generate a substantial economic boost, says M.V. Lee Badgett, research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA. A 2009 study the organization conducted posited that allowing same-sex couples to marry in Vermont would result in an extra $30.6 million for the state over three-years. Another study earlier this year estimated that New Jersey would have generated economic gains of $48 million to $119 million over three years. (Governor Chris Christie vetoed that bill.)

Experts say much of those increases would come from short-term spending on the weddings themselves: the thousands – if not tens of thousands – of dollars couples splurge on celebrating their nuptials, says Badgett. Additional jobs might also be created in the wedding and tourism industries, she says.

Some experts say same-sex couples could also inject more money back into the economy over time, due to long-term savings from filing joint tax returns, and by avoiding taxes on employer-provided benefits. “People would save money by not having to hire lawyers to create documents giving them some kind of connection to each other,” she says.

That said, legalizing same-sex marriage would likely mean higher costs in other areas. For examples, experts point out that the cost to businesses of providing health insurance to married same-sex couples would increase.

Legalizing same-sex marriage on a federal level would also affect government agencies and programs, with revenue losses in some areas, say experts. For example, the government would likely pay out more in Social Security spousal and survivor benefits, says Richard Ebeling, a professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Mich. But it’s unclear if that would mean fewer Americans are eligible for Medicaid, welfare or other programs that assess a spouse’s income and assets, he says. A 2004 study from the Congressional Budget Office expected that the losses and gains in both tax revenue and program expenses would largely even out, with the government saving $1 billion annually over a 10-year period.

Source