[Note: Article based primarily on courtroom Twitter updates from several sources. See this Twitter list for the full stream.]
The Perry v. Schwarzenegger (aka Prop 8) trial turned today from history to economics as the chief economist for San Francisco, Dr Edmund Egan, took the stand.
Egan explained his office reviews legislation proposed by the Board of Supervisors to determine if the measure would have a material economic impact on the city and county.
Under questioning from plaintiff’s lawyers, Egan testified that the Prop. 8’s ban on same-sex marriages is costing San Francisco millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services, San Francisco Chronicle reports. He explained that the ban has financial consequences in several areas.
Egan testified that married people generally accumulate more wealth leading to more sales and increased property values, resulting in higher spending and more sales tax and property tax revenue for San Francisco.
He noted that marriages for same-sex couples would probably also decrease the burden on the public health system because more companies would be likely to insure both spouses if a couple is married. It’s a point that Prop. 8 lawyers disputed on one of their Twitter feeds, by noting HRC statistics showing that a majority of Fortune 500 companies now offer equal health benefits to domestic partners. But, just as that tweet from Alliance Defense Fund crossed the feed, Judge Vaughn Walker admitted into evidence a document describing an employer policy that provides health benefits to married same-sex spouses but not to domestic partners.
The trial: SF economist testifies on financial impact of marriage ban [contd.]
The economist said that legalized marriage for same-sex couples might also reduce discrimination and the need for and cost of counseling and other forms of behavioral health care.
He noted that discrimination affects many aspects of a person's life in ways that have a serious financial impact on the public. That financial impact could extend to schools where, according to a document admitted into evidence, 200 thousand school children are bullied every year, causing them to miss school.
Reducing the discrimination and ridicule faced by LGBT people by recognizing their equal right to marry could lead to less bullying in schools, Egan reasoned, and that could lead to less absenteeism. That would affect San Francisco’s school budget because school funding is based on number of student days, which would increase as absenteeism due to bullying is reduced.
Finally, Egan turned to the economic benefits of marriage ceremonies for the city. He said that weddings generate sales tax revenue from the event itself, but also bring more visitors to the city. He said his analysis has concluded that $35 million would be generated by same-sex weddings with several million more generated by increased tourism because of the weddings.
Egan admitted at the end of his direct testimony that his numbers are estimates and that he unable to provide hard data on the savings or revenues if same-sex marriage were allowed.
Despite that admission, when Egan faced cross-examination by Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, one of the law firms helping to defend Prop. 8, he was asked mostly to explain in excruciating detail his statements about the possible number of weddings that would be performed if marriage equality were recognized once again.
Kate Kendall of NCLR describes Patterson, “Looks like a twenty something college student.”
Kendall and other courtroom observers soon became exasperated with Patterson’s focus on the minutiae of Egan’s testimony. “This is right about the point where every student in the Econ class falls asleep,” ActOnPrinciples tweeted. “Now tediously going over documents prepared for all weddings during the six months couples could marry. Some one bring me a bloody mary,” Kendall tweeted a few moments later. “At excruciatingly slow pace, Patterson trying to use census bureau numbers to attack egans estimate abt how many ss couples would marry,” NCLR tweeted.
“I hate to be unkind, but this is an abysmally ineffective & apparently pointless cross,” NCLR tweeted as Patterson concluded his cross-examination just before the morning break.