Massachusetts and the market for marriage law

I’ve been writing about how money drives the market for marriage law. Specifically, states see how permitting same sex marriage draws couples from out of state and want a piece of that action. California started, NY responded. Now Massachusetts is considering inviting out of state same sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, as the NYT discusses:

State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate. * * *

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that many lawmakers felt the California ruling made support for lifting the ban far less controversial, and that the economic argument did not hurt. “Like other states, it’s tough fiscal times,” Ms. Isaacson said, “and everyone recognizes that this will be an economic boon for Massachusetts because every gay person who comes here to marry, most won’t come alone.” She continued, “They will bring their families and their friends and all those people will stay at the hotels, eat at the restaurants, shop at the stores and hire caterers and florists and musicians.” The study predicts that most of the couples — about 21,000 — will come from New York, nearly half of the 48,761 same-sex couples in that state.

So there is, in fact, a state market for marriage law, which supports holding off on a federal law or constitutional amendment. Of course not everybody agrees with that:

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the repeal “will open up a Pandora’s box of lawsuits to challenge the marriage requirements in other states.”Mr. Mineau added, “And one thing for sure, it will affirm the need for a federal marriage amendment.”