As featured in Edge Magazine a publication dedicated to the presentation of local and national news & information for the GLBT community.

As some of you may know, I am passionate about the issue of suicide among LGBT teenagers. And among other things, I participated in an It Gets Better Video put together and produced by the Independence Business Alliance in Philadelphia. As such, this column focuses on a new initiative that the New York Times recently launched-a series focused on exposing the experiences of LGBT teenagers.

Titled ’Coming Out’: Gay Teenagers, in Their Own Words, the series shares personal stories of LGBT youth at different stages of the “coming out” process. The Times announced it launched the campaign as an effort to better understand this generation’s realities and expectations and to give teenagers their own voice in the conversation.

For those individuals fortunate enough to be part of the popular crowd, high school represents a time of first loves, careless dreams, and unbridled youth. For most adults, however, high school is an experience worth forgetting. Let’s face it, kids can be cruel. Most teenagers come of age in a place where differences are ridiculed, not celebrated, and in this oftentimes harsh environment, teenagers are torn between “finding themselves” and “fitting in.” To make matters worse, some teenagers choose to berate others in order to boost their own self-esteem. So, for the average gay teenager, high school can be hell.

Ridiculed, bullied and ostracized by their peers, gay teenagers are oftentimes left to believe they are alone in the world, a feeling which has all too often resulted in tragedy. The suicidal deaths of five LGBT youth in the span of a mere three weeks in 2010 brought much needed media attention to the pandemic and finally alerted the American public of the depth of the issue.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young adults from ages 15 to 24, but lesbian, gay and bisexual teens are four to five times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers are. A 2009 study, “Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes” led by Dr. Caitlin Ryan and conducted as part of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, showed that adolescence who were rejected by their families for being LGBT were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide.

The Answer: Advocacy, Education and Acceptance. ?As previously mentioned, the American public has finally been awakened to the issues afflicting gay teens. A wave of media campaigns and support groups, such as the “It Gets Better” campaign led by columnist and author Dan Savage, has helped to reassure gay teens that they are not alone and a surge of gay characters and gay story lines on television has provided LGBT teens with much needed feelings of acceptance. As with any hot button issue, however, media attention often begins to fade. Thankfully, certain advocacy groups and media outlets have been able to keep the issues afflicting gay teens afloat.

The Times spoke with or e-mailed nearly 100 LGBT teens from all of parts of the country-from rural areas to urban centers, from supportive environments to hostile ones. The newspaper contacted them through various advocacy groups, as well as through social networking sites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

The Trevor Project, which provides counseling to LGBT youths in crisis, among other services, posted a call for teenagers to tell their stories to the Times, resulting in nearly 250 responses.

The stories that the Times received from LGBT teenagers across the country were astonishing. Some teens’ stories were filled with anxiety, fear, and rejection, but surprisingly, a majority of others was filled with acceptance, love, and hope.

“I don’t know how to label myself,” wrote one teen. “I shouldn’t want a label, but I do. I like being part of a group, I like knowing where I belong, I like fitting into spaces carved out for me.”

“I was afraid to tell,” said Kenji. “I am a gay teenager living in a traditionally conservative state, Alabama. As if it weren’t bad enough that I have had to struggle with bullying and teasing from my peers on a regular basis, I have also had to struggle with coming out to my father.”

“Apparently they were just waiting for me to come out to myself,” Sarah told the Times. I can’t say it was much of a surprise to my family or most of my friends when I came out as gay a year ago. I on the other hand was shocked.”

Although society is becoming more accepting of the LGBT community, some things have yet to change. Gay teenagers continue to come of age amidst fears of bullying, rejection, and loneliness. “In the face of competing messages, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths just want to be teenagers,” writes the Times. “While they envision a world where they can get married and have doors opened to them, they do not want to be defined by their sexuality, regardless of how they are received by their community. It is just one part of their identity.”

At a stage in life when “fitting in” seems to be the most important thing imaginable, LGBT teenagers simply want to be accepted for who they are.

As featured in Edge Magazine a publication dedicated to the presentation of local and national news & information for the GLBT community.

Homophobia still runs rampant around much of the world, but the global LGBT community is experiencing change as human rights advocates like Grace Gomez fight for change.

Grace Gomez, a Coral Gables, Fla., lawyer working with LGBT asylum seekers in the United States, has been making some progressive changes working with displaced LGBT Jamaicans in Florida.

Homophobia is a prominent mindset throughout the country and the United States serves as a haven for some refugees who Gomez has helped to seek asylum. Their stories of hardship are heart-wrenching, as the possibility of being beaten, stabbed, or jailed is an everyday reality for LGBT Jamaicans.

Gomez specializes in immigration law and has become a passionate champion for LGBT asylum seekers globally. When she began her immigration work, she knew nothing about the injustices facing LGBT communities around the world, and she definitely didn’t expect to become so involved in her work. The passion for her work was inevitable; after hearing the stories and gaining the trust of her clients, her mission became to change the lives of even just a few immigrants. According to Grace, once she won the trust of the Jamaican LGBT community it became much easier to understand the innate and ingrained fears that they had of their government, families, and country.

Many LGBT Jamaicans in the United States seeking asylum have been completely shunned and outcast. It was hard for Gomez to even get her clients comfortable saying the word “gay” as they more often claimed to “be on the other side;” a term coined out of fear and socially learned prejudice. This violent discrimination, from beatings to murders, is a reality instilled in the community dynamic. Even harboring someone suspected of being gay has violent repercussions.

A client of Gomez, who out of fear for his life would like to remain unnamed, was emotional as he explained his conditions and that of his fellow Jamaicans who were “lost” prior to meeting Gomez. He said that she “helped put things into perspective for me, and told me I could file for asylum or withholding.”

As defined by the United Nations persons claiming asylum must establish a “well-founded” fear of persecution, based on one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion. The asylum seeker must prove their case and the courts are obligated by law to protect the refugee.

Withholding is defined under Article 3 and requires applicants to establish that it is more likely than notthat they would be tortured if removed to a specific country. It is truly up to an Immigration Judge to decide if the candidate for asylum meets the standard. The notable difference is that asylum is discretionary while Article 3 protection is mandatory.

Relief from deportation under Withholding of Removal is found in the Immigration and Nationality Act under §241(b)(3) and 8 U.S.C. §1231 (b)(3). Under this section, the Attorney General “may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Furthermore, a grant of withholding of removal under INA § 241 (b)(3) provides for a mandatoryprohibition against removal of a person to a country when that person has met the burden of proof, in contrast to the discretionary relief available under a grant of asylum.

An application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. §1158 is generally considered an application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3) as well. Thus, if the determination is made that a person’s life or freedom would be threatened if returned to Jamaica because they are homosexual, they are entitled to mandatory relief from removal to that country.

As Gomez’s client describes his feeling about being in court he explains, “[I]t felt like I went in there with a mask on, and when I came out, it felt like I could take my mask off.” That liberating moment is one that many gay Jamaicans trapped in their home country will never experience.

Jamaica gives no protection to its gay citizens as the law clearly denounces homosexual acts between men as illegal both publicly and privately. Law enforcement officers actively partake in the discrimination and turn a blind eye towards hate crimes. The judges and court system seem are unaware of the depth of the issue and discriminate just as law enforcement does.

Since protection under the law does not exist locally for LGBT Jamaicans, human rights advocates like Gomez are vital to not only creating a safe place within Jamaica but also changing the perspective of LGBT rights and rule of law in our global community. It is vital to recognize the imbalances of equality that exist around the world in order to demand change and more importantly affect it.

As featured in Edge Magazine a publication dedicated to the presentation of local and national news & information for the GLBT community.

On Feb. 25, Christian Dior fashion designer John Galliano was arrested in Paris on charges of assault and for making anti-Semitic remarks directed towards a couple in a Marais café. Under French law, making anti-Semitic remarks is punishable by up to six months in prison. While this maximum sentence is rarely handed down (offenders are usually given suspended sentences and a heavy fine for their transgression), the law itself is indicative of France’s staunch stance against intolerance and cultural insensitivity.

A nearby patron’s cell phone captured Galliano’s vitriolic tirade on video. It clearly shows an inebriated Galliano saying, “I love Hitler” and “People like you will be dead” to a couple sitting at a table nearby.

Galliano went on trial on June 22. A date for a verdict and sentencing is scheduled for this coming September. At his trial, Galliano’s lawyers presented a familiar defense; Galliano suffers from alcoholism as well as an addiction to barbiturates, and these vices are what ultimately caused this unfortunate event to unfold. After proceedings came to a close, a source close to Galliano stated to British Vogue, “John is very tired; yesterday was a tough day… (John) is medically very frail as his body comes to terms with the withdrawal from all of his addictions-but he felt yesterday was fair; that everyone understood he has been very ill, poisoning his body with a cocktail of alcohol and pills for so long that when he was out of control and truly knew nothing about his behavior he maintains he is a man who encompasses every race and religion in his personal life and through his creative designs. And that the outbursts are that of a mad man, and not the views he holds.”

Arrogant and unapologetic, Galliano has yet to address the underlying problem-cultural insensitivity at best, and deep-seeded anti-Semitism at worst. Instead he, his lawyers, and his PR team have begun down a path often tread by other public figures caught in the media’s crosshairs.

It has become a cultural phenomenon. The story plays out over and over in media outlets across the globe with slight variations in plot line and casting. Earlier this summer New York Congressman Anthony Weiner announced his intention to resign from Congress amid a media frenzy over sexually suggestive pictures sent from his Twitter account. In the weeks leading up to his resignation however, Weiner checked himself into a sexual addiction rehabilitation clinic. He cited his ’disease’ for his errors in judgment, infidelities, and betrayal of his constituency and prayed for public forgiveness.

In 2006, Mel Gibson voluntarily enrolled in a recovery program for struggling alcoholics following his arrest for driving under the influence in Malibu, Calif. A leaked police report revealed a barrage of anti-Semitic remarks made by Gibson upon his arrest. The New York Times said in the report that Gibson is quoted saying “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Gibson later apologized in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, saying that his statements were “blurted out in a moment of insanity.” Gibson’s efforts to win back public affection were thwarted last summer when allegations bolstered by audio recordings surfaced where Gibson uses deplorable racial epithets not fit for repetition.

The list goes on and on. Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer and David Letterman have all invoked “The Gibson Defense,” voluntarily checking into rehabilitation clinics following media fallout surrounding their public transgressions.

From a PR standpoint, the technique is to demonize the action instead of the actor, and characterize the acts or remarks as a symptom of a disease for which the actor is voluntarily seeking treatment. The end goal is to create separation between the deplorable act and the innocent but suffering actor.

Geraldine Bloch, a plaintiff in the case against Galliano, is seeking €1 in damages. Her lawyer said outside of the Paris courthouse that Bloch is “after an expression of regret and an excuse for what has happened.” Galliano and his staff of attorneys and representatives have worked tirelessly to erect a wall of separation between Galliano and his remarks. In doing so, however Galliano and those before him fail to acknowledge the victims of their acts.

Accountability and subsequent retribution all too often get lost in the PR media circus surrounding celebrity scandal. Racism and cultural insensitivity, especially when espoused by a public figure, are never victimless crimes. Hopefully, the French court system will realize the harm done by Galliano this coming September and hold him accountable for his actions.

As featured in Edge Magazine a publication dedicated to the presentation of local and national news & information for the GLBT community.

Sept. 20th solidified the historic repeal of ’don’t ask, don’t tell,’ which was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama late last year. The president, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen issued certification to Congress on July 22 that the military is ready for repeal.

The controversial ban has been in effect for 17 years, and is a measure banning gay and lesbian Americans from serving openly in the military. While it is a big win for LGBT equality, in actuality it just “gives-back” a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens that was taken away-freedom of expression and identity.

The repeal of DADT has faced and will continue to face political opposition until the pass is finalized-and even then, probably for years after. The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. After becoming an official federal standard it inevitably created a kind of modern segregation-unprogressive and constraining. It goes against American ideals of freedom of expression. Gender identity and expression was now seen as “a military distraction.” To many conservatives, creating an openness about sexuality was dangerous, while to repeal supporters it is an American imperative.

The repeal comes as two of the most powerful Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee call for a delay on the process of ending DADT. On Sept. 15, five days prior to the effective date of the repeal, Congressmen Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), wrote Panetta asking him to “take immediate action to delay the implementation of repeal.” McKeon and Wilson state that the request is due to their belief that Congress was inadequately informed of the policy changes that will accompany the repeal.

The Pentagon’s response refutes Wilson and McKeon.

“[S]enior Department of Defense officials have advised Congress of changes to regulations and policies associated with the repeal,” it said in a statement. “We take that obligation seriously. Senior department officials, including the general counsel, have met with House Armed Services Committee staff and shared with them all of the proposed revisions to the regulations and new policies to be promulgated.”

Troops underwent training programs to clarify the law and ensure a smooth transition to its repeal. Moreover, before the law could go into effect, defense leaders had to certify that it will have no adverse impact on the military. Military leaders say they have seen no widespread resistance to the policy change. In a survey of troops last year, two-thirds predicted little impact on the force’s ability to fight. The greatest complaints about the change came from combat troops, including many in the Marine Corps and Army. Most of the training was expected to be completed by this summer, but there is no requirement that 100 percent of the military be trained prior to repeal.

Previous Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a steadfast supporter of repealing DADT, maintained there would be no roadblocks to ending the ban. Prior to leaving office, Gates issued an order that no one could be discharged under DADT unless it was approved by the secretary of the military service involved. The Pentagon raised the bar for separation of LGBT troops by requiring the civilian service secretaries and the Pentagon’s top lawyer to approve any separation. Since then, only four troops have been separated pursuant to DADT.

Unfortunately, the conditions of the four separations are somewhat disturbing. Three members of the Air Force proactively requested to be discharged because they are gay, moving quickly to get out of the military under the ban on openly gay service before its repeal. According to the Air Force, this past June, two female staff sergeants and a male second lieutenant identified themselves as gay and asked to be separated quickly from the service. Only one other person, an Airman First Class, has been discharged under the law since last October. In a statement issued by Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, “[i]t is shocking to see incidents of people trying to force the Pentagon to let them out of the service obligation” because the law is still on the books.

While no plans for any Pentagon ceremonies or events regarding the repeal have been announced, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced its nationwide “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal Day celebrations to take place when the law officially expires on Sept. 20.

“[T]he repeal of ’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an important milestone along the journey to achieving LGBT equality in America’s military… through the events taking place across the country, we will pay tribute to their service and sacrifice as we look forward to this new era of military service-an era that honors the contributions of all qualified Americans who wish to serve,” said SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis.

A flagship event is scheduled in the nation’s capital, accompanied by supporter-created events throughout the country.

While the repeal is a “win” for the LGBT community as a whole, the damage done to military personnel forced to be closeted is irrevocable. With that said, after 17 years, all LGBT military personnel will re-enjoy the constitutional right of personal expression.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center teamed up to end widespread discrimination of LGBT students in the Anoke-Hennepin School District in Minnesota.  The school district, which is the largest in the state, has implemented a gag policy.  This gag policy demands absolute silence on behalf of teachers and school officials when it comes to discussing any LGBT related issues at the schools. This disturbingly discriminatory policy has spawned tolerated harassment and bullying aimed at LGBT students.

The two organizations sent a letter to the school district demanding they take “prompt and meaningful action to remedy the current hostile environment.” The letter also demands the school take steps to end the horrible treatment of LGBT students and, ultimately, to repeal the gag policy.  The letter also asserts that the gag policy is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Consitution.

The treatment of LGBT students in the district is heartbreaking. Numerous students have faced verbal bashing and even physical assaults by their classmates.

The letter cites the experiences of three students:

• One student faced daily verbal and physical harassment at school because of the perception that she is a lesbian. She reported the harassment to teachers and administrators numerous times, but the only response was an occasional verbal reprimand with no consequences for the harassers. The district took no action, and she eventually dropped out of school and attempted suicide.
• One student reported chronic harassment to authorities for two years, only to be advised by administrators to leave the school because they could not protect him.
• A teenager endured years of verbal and physical harassment based on his sexual orientation and perceived gender nonconformity before dropping out of school. In one incident, he was violently assaulted and called “faggot” as a teacher and students stood by.

In each of these incidents, school authorities failed to respond to repeated reports of verbal and physical harassment, according to the letter.

SPLC attorney Samuel Wolfe and NCLR attorney Shannon Minter both agree the gag policy itself serves no legitimate educational purpose. The policy is astonishingly homophobic and only serves to single out LGBT youth in the district. It creates a hostile learning environment for LGBT students, making it near impossible for them to focus on their education. Similarly, the psychological and emotional repercussions from their experiences will have an indelible effect on their lives. However, this policy does not only harm those being bullied but also non-LGBT students. Every day this policy is in effect these students are taught that discrimination, abuse and hatred are not only justifiable, but accepted.

  This week Cambridge, MA became the first city to offer stipends to same-sex married public employees who face additional tax liabilities for benefits received under employment.  The unprecedented legislation will effectively subsidize the additional tax liability assumed by same-sex married couples that receive health benefits from their employers. 

   Under federal tax law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic spouses are taxable income.  Heterosexual couples can avoid this tax liability by marrying.  While many states have enacted legislation that recognizes same-sex marriages, federal law does not recognize these unions.  As a result, federal tax liability for same-sex married couples does not reflect the state-sanctioned unions.  Employees with domestic partners pay on average $1,069 more in taxes every year than employees with the same coverage but who are married[1]. 

   The Cambridge stipends, paid quarterly to 22 same-sex married public employees, will defray the cost of this additional tax liability.  While no city or other municipality has enacted legislation providing these protections, the idea is not unprecedented.

    In June of 2010 Google became one of a handful of corporations to offer similar packages to its employers.  Other companies that pay married same-sex couples based on their additional tax liabilities include Cisco, Kimpton Hotels and the Gates Foundation.

    Cambridge should be applauded for its equality efforts.  And, while the Cambridge stipend program is sure to be the first of many, especially in the Northeast where states are generally progressive in their stance toward the validity of same-sex marriages, many remain hopeful that cities and municipalities will not have to resort to such measures.  A Senate repeal hearing for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the current Federal Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex unions, has been set for July 20^th.   If repealed, married same-sex couples will face the same tax treatment as their married heterosexual counterparts.

Domestic Partner Benefits: The Hidden Costs Affecting LGBT Employees

Many businesses are finally recognizing the value of diversity and equality in the workplace.  As a result, by offering domestic partner health benefits, companies are attracting many qualified LGBT employees.  The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reported roughly 58% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, and while these companies are to be praised for their progressive efforts, many remain oblivious to the negative tax implications stemming from domestic partner benefits.

Under Federal Law, employer-provided domestic parter health benefits fall within the ambit of taxable income.  An LGBT employee must pay tax on the value of benefits received by their non-dependent domestic partner, a tax that married heterosexual employees are exempt from.   The following example illustrates how the added value is computed into the LGBT employee’s taxable income:

A single employee, an employee with a domestic partner, and a heterosexual married employee all earn an annual salary of $30,000.  Their employer contributes $6,000 in benefits to the single employee and $10,000 in benefits to both the employee with a domestic partner and to the heterosexual married employee.   Neither the $6,000 contribution to the single employee nor the $10,000 contribution to the heterosexual married employee is included in taxable income, thus both employees’ taxable income remains at $30,000.

However, the employee with a dependant domestic partner must pay taxes on an additional $4,000 of income to his previously mentioned counterparts.  This $4,000 is the value of the benefit received by his or her domestic partner,thus, the employee with a domestic partner ends up with a taxable income of $34,000. This employee must now taxes based on an artificially inflated income while his counterparts enjoy the same benefits with no adverse tax implications.

A study conducted by the Williams Institute and Center for American Progress has shown that employees who elect to include their domestic partner under their health benefit plan pay on average $1,069 more a year in taxes than heterosexual married employees with the same benefits.  Employers providing the benefits pay a collective total of $57 million per year in additional payroll taxes.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is presently advocating the government’s passing of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act (TEHPA).  If passed, the act would end the taxation of employer- provided health benefits to any beneficiary under the employee’s coverage.  TEHPA was written specifically with non-dependent domestic partners in mind. Until the act is passed, however, companies are faced with dilemma of not only whether or not to afford their LGBT employees domestic partner benefits, but also whether or not to cover the additional tax liabilities that are subsequently imposed.

In 2010, Google, a company known for providing its employees with a number of fringe benefits, decided to attack this unequal tax treatment by providing extra compensation to cover those facing the domestic partner tax.  This practice, known as “grossing up”, undoubtedly costs Google money, but Google executives insist the company is more interested in doing the right thing than in saving money.   Google is not the only company to address the situation, and as businesses become increasingly aware of the unequal tax treatment imposed on its LGBT employees, Google will certainly not be the last.

New York State approves same-sex marriage: let the wedding bells (and cash registers) ring

On Friday, June 24 2011 New York City’s West Village erupted in celebration as hundreds gathered outside the historic Stonewall Inn to celebrate one of the most significant victories in the modern gay rights movement – the legalization of same-sex marriage. The New York State Senate passed the legislation by a margin 33-29, making New York the sixth and most populous state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.

And while the sounds  reverberating through the West Village on that historic Friday night could best be described as sounds of joy and cheer, New York State is about to be inundated with a new sound  – the sound of cash registers.  On July 24, 2011 floods of same-sex couples will begin their race to the altar and New York’s economy will suddenly be inundated with a sea of cash.  From lobster and caviar to the Four Seasons and Gracie Mansion, some same-sex couples will be sure to spare no expense.

There is no doubt that weddings are great for the economy.  The average American wedding costs almost $29,000, according to The Wedding Report, a market research publication.  But, same same-sex households tend to have more disposable income and a higher median income than average heterosexual couples. The most recent figures available indicate that same-sex couples earn an average of $80,610 compared to the $73,655 average income of married heterosexual couples.  Many analysts believe this additional income will correlate into same-sex couples spending more on their “big day.”

Exactly how much revenue will same-sex marriage generate for the State of New York? Estimates range from a modest $225 Million upward to roughly $2 Billion over the course of the next three years.  With a population greater than the combined total of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and the District of Columbia (the jurisdictions that currently recognize same-sex marriage), the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) estimates that approximately 66,000 same-sex couples will be expected to tie the knot in the Empire State within the next three years.

Factoring in tourism, marriage license fees, and sales and hotel taxes, the IDC projects an overall economic boost of $391 million.  A similar report from the Independent Economic Conference projects that same-sex unions will generate about $284 million in additional wedding revenue and tourism and put another $27 million in taxes and license fees into the state’s capital over the next three years.  However, as an article published by the Daily Beast points out, these figures are extremely conservative, using an average amount of $4,000 per wedding.  As mentioned, the national wedding budget is closer to $30,000.  Moreover, the average wedding in New York City costs upwards to $70,000. Accordingly, same-sex nuptials have the potential to flood New York’s wedding industry with an astounding $2 billion in revenue.

Whether or not the New York Senate had the economy in mind when voting to pass the same-sex marriage legislation seems almost irrelevant – the bill passed.   Furthermore, to reduce the on-going struggles of the LGBT community by analyzing same-sex marriage from an economic standpoint seems not only impersonal, but somewhat immoral.  After all, the push for marriage equality is about human dignity, not dollar signs.  Nonetheless, $2 Billion is hard to ignore.

Regardless of the reason, New York chose to push marriage equality forward.  As a result, thousands of same-sex couples will soon descend upon the Empire State to tie the knot, while states that do not recognize same-sex marriage will be losing out on potentially millions of dollars that could have been spent within their own borders.  And, if missing out on an influx of a few million dollars will help to change the mindset of even a few opposed to same-sex marriage, then so be it.  As for New York, it may now sit back and reap the benefit of choosing to “do the right thing”.  Any economic benefit bestowed upon the Empire State is now just icing on the proverbial wedding cake.