E-Mail This Article to a Friend FAMILY ECONOMICS Cost-effective gay marriage BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI

When Ron Schlittler, of Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), first heard grumblings among social conservatives about the "cost" of gay marriage, he was reminded of another gay-rights fight — the one for domestic-partnership benefits. In battles over benefits in the past, opponents often claimed that providing health insurance and other protections to partners of gay men and lesbians would, as Schlittler recalls, "somehow break the bank." Now, they like to say that same-sex marriage will cost taxpayers more money.

"It wasn’t true then," Schlittler say, "and it’s not true now."

But that’s just his gut talking. To actually debunk the myth, PFLAG set out to quantify the financial ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage, and it uncovered some interesting results. For starters, Schlittler and his colleagues gathered as much information as they could on a little-noted fact about same-sex couples today: they already endure financial hardship because they cannot marry, yet pay out a disproportionate share of income for public programs. In general, gay and lesbian couples must pay higher state and federal taxes than married straight couples earning identical sums. But unlike straight married couples, they cannot access the state and federal benefits their taxes help fund. (Even legally married Bay State same-sex couples are still barred from federal marital benefits.) Last April, for instance, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a study illustrating the widespread economic disparities that unmarried same-sex couples face. According to the study, an Oregon couple had to pay $1929 annually — 25 percent more — in state and federal income taxes than a similar married couple paid, since they could not file a joint tax return. Meanwhile, the couple cannot receive workers’-compensation benefits if one of the partners dies from a work injury. If the couple were married, the surviving spouse would be entitled to $448 a week.

"There is this presumption that gay people don’t deserve full equality, and we’ve paid and continue to pay into these programs," Schlittler says. He then riffs sarcastically, "So what? We’re supposed to be subsidizing straight people?"

However important questions of fairness may be, PFLAG’s research uncovered another reason to support same-sex marriage: it may actually save taxpayers money. Marriage, after all, requires partners to assume legal responsibility for their joint living expenses, which, in turn, results in less dependency on such public-assistance programs as Medicaid, welfare, disability, and food stamps. Last month, in fact, a study conducted by the UCLA School of Law found that the state of California stands to save as much as $25 million by allowing same-sex couples to marry. The bulk of the savings, according to the study, would come from a decrease in demand for social services. In New Jersey, which just passed a domestic-partnership law, a state-sponsored study calculated that the state would reap as much as $61 million annually from the reform — which obviously isn’t as far-reaching as civil marriage.

Ultimately, it seems, the evidence paints a different picture of the public cost of gay marriage than opponents would have us believe. As Schlittler concludes, "It’s a red herring to say recognizing gay couples is expensive. Every indication says that is just wrong."