The Economic Impact of Same-Sex Weddings on Sonoma County
Embargoed until 6am 10/06/08 for public release
Robert Eyler, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Economics
Director, Center for Regional Economic Analysis
Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3609
707-664-4256
eyler@sonoma.edu
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Estimating the Increased Demand for Wedding Services
Housing as Potential Demand
Tourism Data
Wedding Expenditure Data
Calculating the Initial Economic Impact
Effective Demand of Same-Sex Weddings In Sonoma County
Wedding Ceremony and Tourism Expenditures
Direct Tax Impacts
Economic Impact Analysis
Brief Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
Economic Impacts
Conclusions
References
Page
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
16
17
24
25
Figures and Tables
Table or Figure
Summary Table of Effective Demand and Expenditures
Summary Table of Results, 2009 - 2011
Table 1: Unmarried Partner Households, American Community
Survey, 2006
Table 2: Unmarried Partner Households, American Community
Survey, 2007-2008
Table 3: Effective Demand for Same-Sex Weddings in California,
Out of State Residents, 2009-2011
Table 4: Effective Demand for Same-Sex Weddings in Sonoma
County, 2009-2011
Table 5: Expenditures on Same-Sex Weddings and Associated
Tourism Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Table 6: Summary Employment Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Table 7: Summary Revenue Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Table 8: Summary Wage Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Table 9: Summary Fiscal Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Figure 1: Economic Impact Concept
Page
3
3
7
11
12
13
15
20
21
22
23
18
1
Executive Summary
This report examines the positive impacts on the Sonoma County economy of the
continued recognition in California of marriage equality for same-sex couples through the
defeat of Proposition 8. Although current tourism trends suggest that primarily
California same-sex couples will come to Sonoma County for their weddings, Sonoma
County will attract couples (and their guests) from all over the United States. The
resulting increased tourism business drives new economic benefits, due both to increased
direct expenditures on wedding and associated services and to indirect and induced
effects on local businesses beyond the directly-affected services.
Local tourism in general will be positively impacted as couples choose Sonoma
County for their wedding, regardless of their residential location. In addition, there are
positive fiscal budget impacts of allowing same-sex couples to come to Sonoma County
to obtain a legally-recognized marriage. These include increased marriage licenses fees,
sales taxes, transitory occupancy taxes (TOT), and other revenues for the local
government. There may also be costs to the local government as a result of such
marriages, but because the data do not exist to consider how same-sex marriages may
negatively impact local economies, those issues are not mentioned here.
The Census Bureau and assumptions from Sears and Badgett (2008) provide
relevant data regarding the effective demand for same-sex weddings performed and
celebrated in Sonoma County. Using industry statistics, the average amount of wedding
and tourism expenditures can be estimated. Collectively, such data provide an amount of
direct expenditures and tax revenues for the state and local governments from Sonoma
County’s augmented activity. The economic impact analysis estimates additional
revenues, jobs, wages, and taxes generated by these direct expenditures. A range of
2
effects is provided by this study, reflecting a broad range of wedding and associated
tourism levels and choices. If Proposition 8 is defeated, Sonoma County and its tourism
firms should consider a marketing campaign aimed at same-sex couples who reside
outside of California to attract a larger portion of the market than is currently served and
thereby further increase economic benefits to Sonoma County and its residents.
Summary Table of Effective Demand and Expenditures
Model Components and Estimates
Out-Of State
Couples
In-State
Couples
Totals
Same-Sex Households
in US, 2008
674,548
111,289
785,837
Same-Sex Households to CA
to Marry, 2008
69,894
55,645
125,539
38
1,496
1,534
$5,942 – $13,730
$13,730 - $27,460
$13,555 - $27,180
Tax Revenue from
Spending per couple,
2009-2011
$552 - $1,365
$1,365 - $2,758
$1,345 – $2,723
Direct Expenditure on Wedding and
Associated Tourism, 2009-2011
$0.2 - $0.5 mil
$20.7- $41.2 mil
$20.9- $41.7 mil
Direct State and Local Tax Revenue,
2009-2011
$0.02 - $0.1 mil
$1.63- $3.3 mil
$1.65 - $3.2 mil
Same-Sex Households
to Sonoma County
to Marry, 2009-2011
Wedding and Tourism Spending per
Couple, 2009-2011
Summary Table of Results, 2009 – 2011
New Jobs
New Wages
State and Local
Gov Revenue
Business Revenue
2009
2010
2011
275 - 553
89 – 179
66 - 133
$8.7 - $17.6 mil
$2.9 – $5.7 mil
$2.1 - $4.3 mil
$1.5 – $3.0 mil
$0.51 – 0.99 mil
$0.38 - $0.74 mil
$25.6 - $51.4 mil
$8.4 – $16.8 mil
$6.2 - $12.5 mil
Total Impacts
430 - 865
$13.7 - $27.6 mil
$2.4 – $4.7 mil
$40.2 - $80.7 mil
3
The Economic Impact of Same-Sex Weddings on Sonoma County1
Introduction
This report focuses on the economic impact of the continued recognition of samesex marriages in California on the Sonoma County economy. There are three strands of
effects. First, there is increased tourism for Sonoma County as a result of same-sex
couples choosing Sonoma County as a destination wedding location. These couples will
come from places outside of Sonoma County, where most live elsewhere in California;
Sonoma County exports services for such weddings to anyone that lives outside the
county. Second, there are indirect and induced effects on many businesses beyond the
directly-affected services provided, such as event facilities, caterers and florists.
Multiplier effects touch most businesses, as even more jobs and wages flow from the
additional expenditures. Finally are the fiscal budget impacts of the total increase in local
expenditures from continuing marriage equality. These include marriage licenses fees,
sales taxes, transitory occupancy taxes (TOT), and other government revenues. While
there may also be costs to the local government as a result of these marriages, because
historic data do not exist to consider how same-sex marriages may impact local
economies, in both positive and negative ways, these issues are mentioned only briefly in
this report. It is important to see the results of this study as those that would result from a
nation-wide increase in weddings, regardless of a couple’s demography.
This report is split into four sections. The first is a brief review of the studies and
steps used in calculating the number of same-sex couples who are likely to have a
wedding in Sonoma County is Proposition 8 (“Prop 8”) fails. This includes couples
coming from all geographic points in the United States. The second section uses that data
1
The author would like to acknowledge the Horizons Foundation for their funding.
4
to estimate the amount of total, direct spending that may occur as a result of these couples
coming to Sonoma County to celebrate their marriage. This estimation involves some
assumptions about average wedding cost and additional tourism expenses of wedding
guests. These assumptions come from either studies on both wedding and tourism
demand and also the types of expenditures specifically in Sonoma County. The third
section is the economic impact analysis itself, where the multiplier effects are added to
the direct expenses above. The final section concludes the report and provides summary
data.
Estimating the Increased Demand for Wedding Services
A recent study by the Williams Institute at the School of Law at UCLA estimates
the volume of same-sex weddings and their economic impact on California (Sears and
Badgett, 2008). Our study follows their methodology and logic2. We begin with
estimating the number of weddings that would take place as a result of legalized marriage
in the United States. Since the recent California Supreme Court decision on June 16,
2008, there has been some impact. This study focuses estimates a range of impact figures
concerning future wedding and associated tourism demand. The range is based on
recognizing that Sonoma County, as a destination for weddings and tourism is likely to
have a wide array of expenditures and visitors rather than one set; a range also provides a
broader number of outcomes for policy makers to consider than a point estimate.
2
The authors of the California study (Sears and Badgett, 2008) conducted an original study as well (Sears
and Badgett, 2005), the origin of their methodology. The Williams Institute intends to produce similar
studies for all of the states and Puerto Rico. See http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html for
links to studies and current demographic estimates. Some slight differences exist in the numbers for each
study due to their use of the average number of households and this study’s use of the growth rate.
5
A mix of studies and web-based sources provides statistics on weddings and
tourism estimate direct expenditures on these services. Data exist about the Sonoma
County tourism economy specifically that can help shed light on estimating both the
number of weddings likely to occur and subsequent expenditures locally. These studies
and data provide a foundation for estimating the events that trigger the economic impacts
shown below. Because the allowance of same-sex marriages has little history in the
United States, much less California and Sonoma County, data specific to this question are
somewhat difficult to find.
Households as Potential Demand
We first assume that current unmarried, same-sex couples currently identified as a
household are most likely to pursue a wedding if Prop 8 is defeated. According to the
American Community Survey (ACS) of the Census Bureau, California has 13.9% of the
unmarried, same-sex households in the United States. The ACS estimates there are
778,867 unmarried, same-sex households in the United States. Table 1 summarizes the
state data and the national number of same-sex households estimated in the 2006 ACS.
Once the number of households is determined, an estimated number of
households to be married in California must then be calculated.
Sears and Badgett
(2008) provide some background on this estimation for California as a whole, as do Dean
Runyan Associates (2008) and D.K. Shifflet (2007) in studies for the California Tourism
Bureau. Sears and Badgett (2008) estimate that 50% of California’s same-sex couples
will marry in the next three years if California legitimizes these unions; they further
estimate that 25% of same-sex couples from California’s major tourism states choose to
be married in California. Another reason these couples may travel to California from
6
other states is the likelihood their California marriage will be recognized by their state of
residence. Because many other states are less likely to recognize such a union, Sears and
Badgett (2008) assume that in the remaining states only 5% of same-sex couples will
come to California to be married.
Table 1: Unmarried Partner Households, American Community Survey, 20063
State
Total
Households
Unmarriedpartner
households
MaleMale
FemaleFemale
Same-Sex
Households
California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Massachusetts
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey
Washington
Virginia
12,151,227
8,109,388
7,106,042
7,088,376
4,724,252
4,845,603
4,499,506
3,376,763
2,446,485
3,869,117
3,454,068
3,135,490
2,471,912
2,905,071
737,192
369,951
430,009
385,499
241,752
250,139
242,352
164,502
138,989
207,048
162,141
147,956
161,058
128,147
62,808
28,156
29,976
27,757
17,029
15,042
14,835
14,329
11,789
11,574
12,810
11,421
11,005
10,366
45,926
25,052
22,010
23,454
13,403
14,600
13,660
10,856
11,866
11,871
9,355
9,984
9,228
8,729
108,734
53,208
51,986
51,211
30,432
29,642
28,495
25,185
23,655
23,445
22,165
21,405
20,233
19,095
All Other States
41,434,102
2,250,727
138,147
132,829
270,976
United States
111,617,402
6,017,462
417,044 362,823
Source: Bureau of Census, American Community Survey
779,867
Tourism Data
Once these numbers are determined, a focus on Sonoma County can take place,
including intrastate flows. It is important to also estimate how many same-sex couples
living within California will choose Sonoma County over their home county for a
wedding ceremony because Sonoma County draws most of its tourists from within
3
Puerto Rico was excluded from this data because it has been excluded from others. However, because the
number of same-sex households in Puerto Rico exceeds those in some states, including Puerto Rico would
increase the figures in total.
7
California. Shifflet (2007) provides an estimate of the Sonoma County tourism flows in
terms of overall California tourism. First separating business from leisure travel, Shifflet
(2007) also separates resident from non-resident travel. This separation provides a
distinction between those that arrive from outside California and those who live here
traveling to Sonoma County. The average percentage of California tourism that comes
from outside the state to Sonoma County is 1.085% and 2.715% of intrastate tourism by
Californians between 2003 and 2006 (Shifflet, p. 27). These numbers are used below to
estimate how many couples and guests will travel to Sonoma County to participate in and
attend a wedding, its reception and associated services.
Sonoma County releases a tourism report annually through its Economic
Development Board (Moody’s, 2008)4. The 2008 report provides data on Sonoma
County’s tourism market that also help shape some of the conclusions below. First,
approximately 61% of the tourists in Sonoma County originate within four specific areas
of California; these include the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area, Los Angeles,
Sacramento and Yolo Counties, and San Diego (Moody’s, 2008, p. 13). In all, California
residents make up approximately 72.5% of Sonoma County’s tourists; 21.4% are from
other states and 6.1% are international (Ibid, p. 17). This implies an additional layer of
spending on same-sex weddings, assuming those attending a wedding follow tourism
trends.
Wedding Expenditure Data
The Wedding Report (www.theweddingreport.com) is the key source for specific
wedding data. Following the Census Bureau, this website provides information down to
8
the zip code level on wedding expenditures and other statistics involving wedding
ceremonies. The Wedding Report provides an estimation of wedding expenditures to
help estimate the economic impacts as described below. As in Sears and Badgett (2008),
the average cost of a wedding may be different depending on where the couple originates;
as they did, we assume that out-of-state couples will spend roughly 10% at a minimum of
what in-state couples do on a ceremony, while those who live in California spend 25% of
the average wedding cost as a conservative estimate. Out-of-state (OOS) couples are
assumed to spend further on tourism-like expenditures including air travel, car rental and
hotel stays. For any couple, there is a ceremony and tourism element to the total wedding
expenditure5. Different from Sears and Badgett (2008), we estimate for OOS couples
spending 25% of the average and in-state couples spending 50%. This mix provides a
range of figures below rather than a point estimate.
Calculating the Initial Economic Impact
The initial calculation of direct expenditures and tax revenues is largely an
exercise of arithmetic and algebra, where some of the unknowns must be either assumed
or calculated from what data exist. Following the initial logic of Sears and Badgett
(2008), the order of operations is to estimate the following data points:

the number of unmarried same-sex couples in the United States as of January 1,
2009;

the number of same sex couples reside in California versus other states;
4
See www.sonoma-county.org/edb/reports.htm for the tourism report mention here and others dating back
to 2001. See the latest at http://www.sonoma-county.org/edb/pdf/2008/annual_tourism_report_2008.pdf
5
While other sources of wedding demographics and expenditure data exist, The Wedding Report is by far
the most respected and widely-cited source.
9

the number of same-sex couples, family and friends from all 50 states are likely to
travel to Sonoma County to get married as a result of Proposition 8’s not passing;

the total number of guests that would come to Sonoma County for a wedding;

the cost of weddings for both out-of-state and in-state couples to have the
ceremony in this county;

the additional tourism expenditures associated with the wedding ceremony for
those living outside Sonoma County; and

the tax receipts from sales taxes, marriage licenses and TOT taxes due to
increased wedding ceremony demand in Sonoma County.
Effective Demand of Same-Sex Weddings in Sonoma County
Table 1 provided an overview of the number of unmarried, same-sex couples
from the American Community Survey (ACS) as a starting point. Assuming the growth
between 2005 and 2006 to be the growth for 2007 and 2008, Table 2 shows the estimated
number of unmarried, same-sex couples in the United States as of January 1, 2009.
10
Table 2: Estimated Same-Sex Households, 2007-20086
State
2007
2008
Growth Rate
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Georgia
Michigan
Ohio
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Oregon
Tennessee
Indiana
Virginia
109,905
57,659
51,578
49,286
30,882
30,077
25,213
25,970
24,514
26,482
22,414
23,605
17,322
16,831
16,648
18,536
111,289
62,892
51,954
46,805
31,365
30,519
28,912
26,781
25,946
24,618
23,741
23,592
22,452
18,775
18,478
17,996
1.3%
9.1%
0.7%
-5.0%
1.6%
1.5%
14.7%
3.1%
5.8%
-7.0%
5.9%
-0.1%
29.6%
11.6%
11.0%
-2.9%
All Other States
249,453
262,332
5.2%
782,832
785,837
0.4%
United States
Source: Bureau of Census, American Community Survey and Author’s Calculations
From these data, Table 3 shows the number of couples likely to seek marriage
from 2009 to 2011, the three-year window used to estimate the economic impacts. This
breakdown is based on continued growth in same-sex households, which we assume is
the overwhelming preponderance of couples who would seek marriage. Using the
percentages in Sears and Badgett (2008), an initial surge in demand is then reduced
amounts in years thereafter. The percentages used are as follows: 2009 is 63%; 2010 is
21%; and 2011 is 15% (Sears and Badgett, p. 10). We assume that 1% of those couples
will decide not to get married over those three years, though planned on it initially. It is
important to recognize that not all unmarried couples will seek a wedding ceremony or
6
Puerto Rico was excluded from this data because it has been excluded from other studies. However,
because the number of same-sex households in Puerto Rico exceeds those in some states, including Puerto
11
marriage and that a subset of Tables 1 and 2 is assumed in Table 3 to be the estimated,
effective demand. This effective demand combines the assumptions about the number of
couples from each state that will choose to be married at all, those that choose California
to celebrate that union, and the rate at which those couples will actually consume these
services. For example, in Alabama, there is an estimate 12,725 same-sex households.
Assuming only 5% of those couples will travel to California to be married, 63% or 401 of
the 636 that plan on a wedding in California will consume the services in 2009.
Table 3: Effective Demand for Same-Sex Weddings in California,
Out of State Residents, 2009-20117
State of Origin (%)
2009
2010
2011
3 yr Total
Texas (25%)
New York (25%)
Oregon (25%)
Washington (25%)
Arizona (25%)
Florida (5%)
Nevada (25%)
Illinois (5%)
Pennsylvania (5%)
New Mexico (25%)
North Carolina (5%)
Georgia (5%)
Michigan (5%)
Ohio (5%)
New Jersey (5%)
9,906
8,183
3,536
2,357
1,951
1,474
1,402
988
961
955
911
844
817
775
748
3,302
2,728
1,179
786
650
491
467
329
320
318
304
281
272
258
249
2,358
1,948
842
561
464
351
334
235
229
227
217
201
195
185
178
15,566
12,859
5,557
3,704
3,065
2,317
2,203
1,553
1,511
1,500
1,431
1,326
1,284
1,219
1,175
All Other States (5%)
8,671
2,890
2,065
13,626
Totals
44,478
14,826
10,590
69,894
Source: Bureau of Census, American Community Survey and Author’s Calculations
We now have an estimate of wedding services demand in California, and it is
similar to that in Sears and Badgett (2008). The key now is estimating how many of
Rico would increase the figures in total. Three significant digits are provided because certain states have
very small percentage changes.
12
these couples will seek either wedding, tourism or both services in Sonoma County.
From the combination of tourism studies mentioned above, Table 4 summarizes the
estimated number of unmarried, same-sex couples that will ultimately travel to Sonoma
County as a result of natural tourism flows through and from other parts of California.
Assuming the defeat of Prop 8 would fuel an increase in facilities and firms providing
both wedding and tourism services, it is likely the current tourism data would not fully
capture the next three years of expenditures; this should be considered a conservative
estimate for that reason. Table 4 provides a summary of the effective demand for
Sonoma County weddings based on natural tourism flows and state of residence.
Table 4: Effective Demand for Same-Sex Weddings in Sonoma County, 2009-2011
State of Origin
California
2009 2010 2011 3-yr Total
952 317 227
1,496
New York
Texas
New Jersey
Arizona
Oregon
Other States + D.C. (45)
7
4
4
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
12
6
6
5
4
5
Total Out-of-State
23
9
6
38
Sonoma County Totals
975
327
232
1,534
Source: Bureau of Census, American Community Survey and Author’s Calculations
Because most of Sonoma County’s tourism originates inside of California, the
California numbers dominate the totals. We must remember that the out-of-state
numbers are first less than the in-state numbers because of the assumption made that for
most other states only 5% of couples will come to California for various reasons to be
married. Also, Sonoma County only sees about 1.085% of those that do come from other
The parenthetical percentage next to each state’s name in Table 3 is the percent of each state’s same-sex
couples in 2008 that are likely to come to California to be married from Sears and Badgett (2008). A
7
13
states to California. Finally, California has more same-sex couples than any other state.
We now turn toward an estimate of a wedding’s average ceremonial and tourism services
expenditure.
Wedding Ceremony and Tourism Expenditures
Like the numbers above, these estimates come from somewhat diverse sources.
Sears and Badgett (2008) assume that 25% of the average wedding and associated
tourism expenses will take place for those that live in California, while only 10% of that
figure will hold for those that live out-of-state on average. This study takes a slightly
different path. Because Sonoma County is a relatively expensive tourism area, and
weddings are special events for the couples and their friends and family, we will use 50%
and 25% respectively as a high estimate. Because facilities and hotel space are relatively
expensive and diverse in Sonoma County as compared to California, a range of
expenditures is appropriate8. The Wedding Report provides a breakdown of wedding
ceremony expenses on average specific for Sonoma County. These data are summarized
below by expenditure type. Table 5 shows the average ceremony and tourism expenses
by category demanded. This is important for the economic impact analysis below as it
helps to specify where the new expenditures will target and provide more precision in the
estimated, overall impacts.
8
Using The Wedding Report for comparison purposes, Sonoma County weddings are roughly 20% more
expensive than the average wedding in California. Further, the Sears and Badgett (2008) figures are very
conservative.
14
Table 5: Expenditures on Same-Sex Weddings and Associated Tourism
Sonoma County, 2009-20119
Expenditure
Low
Average in $
2009
Totals ($000)
2010
2011
3-year total
Attire
Ceremony 1
Flowers
Entertainment
Photo
Reception
Transportation
Food and Beverage
Rental
General
Hotel
$262
50
574
689
756
3,447
210
2,491
233
75
3,081
$365
69
800
959
1,053
4,801
293
3,470
324
105
4,249
$124
24
287
332
365
1,666
101
1,051
112
36
1,471
$91
18
221
246
270
1,236
75
780
83
27
1,090
$580
111
1,307
1,538
1,687
7,703
469
5,301
520
168
6,810
Direct Taxes
$958
1,331
450
334
2,115
$9,633
$17,819
$6,019
$4,471
$28,309
Total
Expenditure
High
Average in $
2009
Totals ($000)
2010
2011
3-year total
Attire
Ceremony 1
Flowers
Entertainment
Photo
Reception
Transportation
Food and Beverage
Rental
General
Hotel
$561
107
1,230
1,476
1,620
7,386
450
5,338
499
162
6,692
$721
137
1,580
1,896
2,081
9,489
579
6,857
641
208
8,693
$245
47
565
656
719
3,286
200
2,073
222
72
3,007
$179
35
436
486
533
2,440
148
1,541
164
53
2,228
$1,145
219
2,581
3,038
3,333
15,215
926
10,471
1,027
332
13,928
Direct Taxes
2,061
2,657
897
667
4,221
$20,643
$35,539
$11,989
$8,910
$56,436
Total
Source: The Wedding Report (www.theweddingreport.com) and author’s calculations
Direct Tax Impacts
Once the expenditures are known, direct tax receipts to Sonoma County through
sales taxes, transitory occupancy taxes (TOT) and marriage license fees can be estimated.
15
The tax impact on Sonoma County will be enhanced also by the indirect and induced
economic impacts from this expansion of business in the next section. Table 5 shows the
direct tax estimates for Sonoma County; the full fiscal impact is provided in Table 9.
Using the IMPLAN model from Minnesota Implan Group (MIG), we can estimate new
business and government revenue, new jobs and wages to be created due to the estimate
increase in ceremony and tourism demand from Prop 8’s defeat.
Economic Impact Analysis
Much like the Sears and Badgett (2008) study, this analysis will take a three-year
window for estimating economic impacts. It is important to recognize that the wedding
market will include any type of couple rather than just opposite-sex couples and growth
of weddings will likely continue over time. This section looks at the larger economic
impacts on Sonoma County, where the economic impacts are in 2008 dollars from the
original per year figures. A 3.5% inflation rate is assumed to be the average over the
three years.
Brief Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
Like dropping a rock into a pond, the expansion of industry sales has ripple
effects on local economies based primarily on these new sales and subsequent jobs
created. The IMPLAN model used here, which stands for IMpact analysis for
PLANning, is a model by which municipalities and counties worldwide analyze the
employment, revenue, wage, and tax effects of economic events. There are three
9
The two panels of this table are showing the expenditures assuming that in-state couples will spend at the
50% level of the average wedding, while out-of-state couples will spend 25% at the maximum. At a
minimum they spend 25% and 10% respectively, shown in the second panel.
16
classifications of these effects. The direct effects are those specific to the event. For
example, the allowance of same-sex marriages opens up the demand for services
surrounding weddings to a new demographic group. In this event, the increase in
wedding ceremonies and associated tourism is assumed to generate a direct effect on
local employment, tax and business revenues. Indirect effects come from these workers
and businesses taking their new incomes and spending a portion of that money on other
businesses’ goods and services. This revenue flow to other businesses leads to additional
employment, wages, revenues, and taxes to the initial event. For example, when a
country club increases their sales due to more couples booking facilities for weddings and
receptions, the country club may hire more workers. These newly-employed workers
then spend on other local merchants, which increase these merchants’ sales and
workforce becoming the indirect effects from the original expansion. These additional
jobs and revenues then create induced effects. The induced effects are similar to the
indirect effects, but come from the indirectly-affected workers and firms and their
spending on the local economy more broadly. For example, a new worker at a linen
service, hired due to the indirect effects on her employer of more weddings taking place
locally, may go to the grocery store, auto repair shop, or doctor’s office more often.
These latter expenditures induce further growth in jobs, and sales, employment and tax
revenue in Sonoma County. The sum of these effects is the total or overall economic
impacts from the original event. The tables below are split into these major categories.
Economic Impacts
To use the IMPLAN model, we must choose a figure to represent the economic
event that produces the direct impacts. In this case, we will use the estimated, increased
17
expenditure on weddings and tourism in Sonoma County whose foundational data is in
Table 5. The breakdown of an average wedding costs helps to spread expenses across
appropriate industries, as each may have slightly different multiplier effects than others.
Figure 1 shows a pictorial representation of the economic impact approach to estimating
how an event such a new wedding and tourism demand ripples through a local economy.
Figure 1: Economic Impact Concept
Induced Impact
Indirect Impact
Direct Impact
The direct, indirect and induced effects on business revenues, jobs and taxes are
shown in tables 6, 7, 8, and 9. Each of these tables provides a range of outcomes, not just
a single estimate. The low estimate is very conservative and follows studies by Sears
and Badgett (2005, 2008). The high estimate reflects Sonoma County as a premium
destination for weddings and tourism where those seeking an extraordinary experience
are willing to pay for it. Most weddings will lie somewhere in the middle of these two
numbers in their spending and overall effects. Table 6 shows the number of jobs created
18
over the three years of initial effects, an estimate between 431 and 864 new jobs. Table 7
shows that business revenues increase between $40.2 million and $80.7 million in the
next three years, of which between $13.7 million and $27.6 million are new wages for
both existing workers and new workers estimated in Table 6. Table 9 shows the fiscal
impact generates between $2.4 million and $4.8 million in state and local taxes and other
government revenue in the next three years. To be conservative, we will assume the
associated tourism expenditures are within the ranges shown in Tables 6 through 9.
The industries that these weddings touch concerning an economic impact are
focused on services industries, but not necessarily locally-serving. Because this is an
export activity, the expansion of wedding and tourism demand leads to more exports for
Sonoma County. This is an important contrast to many areas in California which will be
seen as places of convenience for weddings and not destinations. From recent tourism
statistics for Sonoma County, many of the inflows from other parts of California originate
in major population centers. If we assume that the majority of same-sex households
reside in major urban, rather than rural areas, Sonoma County is likely to draw from such
areas and those from outside the state simultaneously. This may not be true for
Sacramento County as an example.
The continued recognition of these unions will have some post-union impacts, a
mix of economic enhancements and possible detriments. Sears and Badgett (2005)
provide a description of both sides and contrast views on the issues. Currently, no
quantitative study exists that suggests these marriages incur either net costs to society or
net benefits; because data do not exist on these effects, they are not part of this
quantitative analysis.
19
Table 6: Summary Employment Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011
Low
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
53
13
13
79
2010
17
4
4
25
OOS
2011
13
3
3
19
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
132
32
33
197
2010
43
11
11
64
In CA
2011
32
8
8
47
Total Effects
2009
2010
2011
275
89
66
Note: This is the number of jobs created
High
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
106
26
26
158
2010
34
8
9
51
OOS
2011
25
6
6
38
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
265
64
66
395
2010
85
21
21
128
In CA
2011
63
16
16
95
Total Effects
2009
2010
2011
553
179
133
Note: This is the number of jobs created
3-year Total
82
20
20
123
3-year Total
206
51
51
308
3-year Total
431
3-year Total
165
40
41
247
3-year Total
414
101
103
617
3-year Total
864
20
Table 7: Summary Revenue Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011, 2008 $ ($000)
Low
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
$4,888
1,156
1,265
7,309
OOS
2010
$1,611
379
413
2,403
2011
$1,194
281
306
1,781
3-year Total
$7,692
1,816
1,984
11,492
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
12,230
2,893
3,164
18,287
In CA
2010
4,031
948
1,034
6,013
2011
2,988
703
767
4,458
3-year Total
19,249
4,545
4,965
28,759
2009
2010
2011
3-year Total
Total Effects
$25,596
$8,416
$6,239
$40,251
Note: These are the amounts of revenue created for local businesses
High
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
$9,808
2,314
2,540
14,662
OOS
2010
$3,222
756
827
4,805
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
24,544
5,792
6,355
36,691
In CA
2010
8,063
1,892
2,071
12,026
2011
$2,400
563
616
3,579
3-year Total
$15,430
3,634
3,984
23,048
2011
3-year Total
38,611
9,093
9,968
57,672
6,005
1,410
1,542
8,957
2009
2010
2011
3-year Total
Total Effects
$51,353
$16,831
$12,536
$80,720
Note: These are the amounts of revenue created for local businesses
21
Table 8: Summary Wage Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011, 2008 $ ($000)
Low
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
$1,593
441
466
2,500
2010
$520
145
152
817
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
3,986
1,102
1,165
6,253
2010
1,301
363
381
2,045
Total Effects
OOS
2011
$385
108
113
606
In CA
2011
964
269
282
1,515
3-year Total
$2,498
693
731
3,922
3-year Total
6,251
1,735
1,829
9,815
2009
2010
2011
3-year Total
$8,753
$2,862
$2,121
$13,737
Note: These are the wages created for new local workers
High
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
$3,203
882
935
5,020
2010
$1,043
290
305
1,638
OOS
2011
$776
216
227
1,219
3-year Total
$5,022
1,388
1,467
7,877
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Induced Effects
Total Effects
2009
8,015
2,208
2,341
12,564
2010
2,609
725
763
4,097
In CA
2011
1,943
540
568
3,051
3-year Total
12,567
3,474
3,671
19,712
2009
2010
2011
3-year Total
Total Effects
$17,584
$5,735
$4,270
$27,589
Note: These are the wages created for new local workers
22
Table 9: Summary Fiscal Impacts of Same-Sex Marriages
Sonoma County, 2009-2011, 2008 $ ($000)
Low
2009
State and Local Revenues
Local Fees
Total
$422
21
443
OOS
2010
$139
7
146
2011
$103
5
108
3-year Total
$663
32
695
2011
258
12
270
3-year Total
1,660
81
1,741
361
17
378
3-year Total
2,323
113
2,436
207
5
212
3-year Total
1,332
32
1,364
519
12
531
3-year Total
3,334
81
3,415
In CA
2009
1,055
52
1,107
2010
State and Local Revenues
Local Fees
Total
2010
State and Local Revenues
Local Fees
Total
2009
1,477
72
1,549
347
17
364
Total
2011
485
24
509
High
OOS
2009
2010
State and Local Revenues
Local Fees
Total
847
21
868
State and Local Revenues
Local Fees
Total
2009
2,121
52
2,173
2011
278
7
285
In CA
2010
2011
695
17
712
Total
2009
2010
2011
3-year Total
State and Local Revenues
2,968
973
726
4,667
Local Fees
72
24
17
113
Total
$3,040
$997
$743
$4,780
Source: Sonoma County Assessor and Author’s Calculations
23
Conclusions
This study provides an estimate of the economic impact on Sonoma County if
California’s Proposition 8 is defeated, allowing same-sex marriages to be equivalent to
heterosexual marriage. The estimations use many of the simple, conservative
assumptions of Sears and Badgett (2008) concerning national demand for California as a
destination wedding state, and then drill down to the county level. Using an estimation of
the direct, new expenditures from weddings and tourism, the economic impact analysis
adds indirect and induced economic expansion of local employment, wages, business and
governmental revenues. This study does not take into account the potential costs of
same-sex marriage, or any other benefits posited in the media or other literature. These
results could be seen as estimates of economic impact for any increase in wedding and
parallel tourism activity for Sonoma County, regardless of the type of couple.
The effective demand for same-sex marriages uses recent data from the American
Community Survey (ACS) and assumes that same-sex households are the most likely
source of demand for weddings if Prop 8 is defeated. These couples originate both inside
and outside of California; California has the largest number of same-sex couples of any
state in America. Various tourism studies agree that most of Sonoma County’s tourism is
generated from within California itself. The combination of natural tourism flows and
the continued recognition of same-sex marriage would draw a certain proportion of samesex couples and to celebrate their wedding, reception and associated tourism activities
(restaurant meals, hotel stays, etc.) in Sonoma County. The Wedding Report, an online
source of information concerning wedding expenditures and demand, provides data for
the amount spent on wedding activities, where various reports for California provides
24
tourism expenditure data. The estimated number of couples coming to Sonoma County,
their level of expenditure on a ceremony and reception, and the associated tourism
expenses of the couple and their guests, creates direct economic effects.
The economic impact analysis estimates additional revenues, jobs, wages, and
taxes generated by these direct expenditures. The effects are mainly on services
industries, specifically food and beverage services, hotels and motels, and entertainment
facilities. However, retail and professional services are also affected by new workers and
wages becoming additional, induced spending throughout the county’s economy.
Highlights from the estimated impacts from 2009 to 2011 are as follows:

Between 431 and 864 jobs are created;

Business revenues are augmented by $40.2 million to $80.7 countywide;

State and local tax revenue generate ranges between $2.4 and $4.8 million; and

Local workers, both new and existing, receive between $13.7 and $27.6 million in
new wages.
The major policy recommendation from this study is to market Sonoma County,
especially its availability by air from Los Angeles, as a destination wedding location to
same-sex households throughout the United States, specifically outside of California if
Prop 8 is defeated.
References
Badgett, M.V. Lee and R. Bradley Sears (2005). “Putting A Price On Equality? The
Impact Of Same-Sex Marriage On California’s Budget”, Stanford Law and Policy
Review, 16(1): 197-232.
Bush, Darren. (2001) “Moving to the Left by Moving to the Right: A Law and
25
Economics Defense of Same-Sex Marriage”, Women’s Rights Law Reporter,
22(2), 115-138.
Dean Runyan Associates (2008) “California Travel Impacts by County, 1992 – 2006,
2007 Preliminary State Estimates”, for the California Tourism Board. Accessed
Sept. 2, 2008:
http://www.visitcalifornia.com/AM/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=2527&MicrositeID=
0&FusePreview=Yes
D.K. Shifflet and Associates Ltd. (2007) “California Domestic Travel Report, 2006”, for
the California Tourism Board. Accessed Sept. 2, 2008:
http://www.visitcalifornia.com/media/uploads/files/CAYE2006DomesticTravelReport-Final.pdf
Gates, Gary J. and M.V. Lee Badgett and Deborah Ho. (2008) “Marriage, Registration
and Dissolution by Same-Sex Couples in the U.S.”, The Williams Institute, UCLA
School of Law, Accessed Sept. 1, 2008:
www.law.ucla.edu/users/williamsinstitute/publications/Couples%20Marr%20Regis%20Diss.pdf
Moody’s Economy.com (2008) “Annual Tourism Report - 2008”, for Sonoma
County Economic Development Board. Accessed Sept. 2, 2008:
http://www.sonoma-county.org/edb/pdf/2008/annual_tourism_report_2008.pdf
Sears and Badgett (2008) “The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on
the California Budget”, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Accessed
Sept. 1, 2008:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/EconImpactCAMarriage.pdf
The Wedding Report (2008) “Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA – Metropolitan Area Weddings”,
Accessed Sept. 5, 2008: http://www.theweddingreport.com (subscription needed)
26