Say That Egan?

Today's testimony in the Proposition 8 trial included claims by an economist that the California Marriage Amendment is costing San Francisco millions of dollars per year. This is a reason why San Francisco is involved in the lawsuit, but I think it is irrelevant to the basic questions about the validity and constitutionality of the amendment. Here's Associated Press writer Lisa Leff's report.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue.

Perhaps the type of people who marry, bringing together a bride and groom, are more likely to be the type to accumulate more wealth? Similar to the health issue I discussed in an earlier entry – all other things being equal, isn't someone going to date/marry the wealthier person, or the person they see as having the potential to earn more? That leaves the people with less wealth unmarried. However, I recall that studies show homosexual people, on average, already earn more than the general population and they are less likely to have children to care for, so San Francisco should be doing well with discretionary spending.

He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner's employee health care plans.

This deals with another question: should governments be involved in delivering health care to civilians? That is not an issue for this blog. However, I would imagine risky and unhealthy physical behavior raises health care costs, too. Regardless, there's no law stopping businesses from extending coverage to domestic partners.

Peter Patterson, a lawyer for Proposition 8 sponsors, challenged Egan's methodology and had him acknowledge during cross-examination that he based many of his estimates on assumptions drawn from the spending habits of opposite-sex couples.

Exactly.

Egan also said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them.

How was this determined? How much discrimination are homosexual people being subjected to in San Francisco? Is it at all possible that mental health problems are correlated to homosexual behavior itself?

[Much more after the jump.]

Egan acknowledged he could not quantify many of the potential revenue and savings benefits San Francisco would realize if same-sex couples could marry. The most solid estimate he cited was $2.6 million the city was losing in hotel and sales tax revenue every year from weddings that can't take place.

"Weddings" are not banned, be they for singles, couples of any sexual composition, trios, or whatever. People have ceremonies, receptions, celebrations, and parties even if they aren't getting legally married. People have held "wedding" ceremonies to marry buildings and animals and themselves.

"Certainly San Francisco experienced an uptake in weddings (in 2008), and I can conclude with that the economic activity associated with weddings increased as well," he said.

This assumes the increased number of ceremonies would continue, which is unlikely. More likely, there was a rush to take advantage of the situation created by the court decision on Prop 22 (California DOMA) and the refusal to stay that decision until the vote on Prop 8 (CMA). Maura Dolan’s take on the testimony is here. Her reports continue to refer to the "law" instead of the "amendment".

She also reports that Cooper asked Walker to stop taping the trial, since it isn't being broadcast. Walker denied the request.

You can comment on Dolan's blog entry. I encourage you to click through and do exactly that.