Could same sex marriage be worth over $100m to NZ?

April 9th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Huntley and Guzzardi are among 2000 same-sex couples predicted to make the journey to New Zealand to take marriage vows.

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said for same-sex couples with a “strong desire” to marry, New Zealand would become an obvious choice.

“The fact that it is geographically and culturally close to Australia will encourage a large number to go to New Zealand to marry,” Croome said.

The expected trans-Tasman travel plans of couples tying the knot may mean Australia’s economy loses out on millions of dollars in wedding outlays.

More than 1300 Australian same-sex couples have already travelled overseas to legally marry in other countries. Those include Spain, Argentina and the United States.

Croome believes at least that many will marry in New Zealand, where there is no residency requirement.

“We’re talking about at least a couple of thousand couples, and each of those couples is spending the average wedding spend – which in Australia is about $36,000. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars,” Croome said.

2,000 extra weddings at $36,000 is $72 million. Of course on top of that, you may have lots in airfares. Air NZ could offer special flights and rates :-)

Tags:

40 Responses to “Could same sex marriage be worth over $100m to NZ?”

  1. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    DPF, always keen on this topic so dear to him, appears to be drawing a long, long bow.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    More Orwellianisms;

    travel overseas to “legally” marry and then return home where the “marriage ” is not legal.

    Doesn’t make any sense at all.

    But then same sex marriage doesn’t make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Haven’t you taken the “most comments” crown back from Whale YET David ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    The continual destruction of marriage culture in New Zealand will cost us far more in welfare than a paltry $100m.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nigel Kearney (1,013 comments) says:

    They can’t legally marry in Australia but they can just have a wedding there and then pop over here for a quick visit to the registry office. That seems more likely than the entire cost of the wedding being spent here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Yes, the skys over cash-strapped Uganda are filled with polygamisys looking to spend up large legitimising their unions

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    $3600O for a wedding,surely not.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    It appears from the article that this prediction of 2,000 extra weddings has been made by the Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome. Who went on to say, ” “We’re talking about at least a couple of thousand couples, and each of those couples is spending the average wedding spend – which in Australia is about $36,000. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. If the Australian Parliament wasn’t so backward on the issue, then that money would be spent on wedding services here. The Government is putting prejudice ahead of economic good sense.”

    In other words, he has an agenda to push – he is trying to get Australia to legalise same-sex marriage, so of course will seize on every opportunity to make his point. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s see if his predictions actually come to fruition before getting all excited, shall we?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Couldn’t we save $100,000,000 by not funding special interest crap like Backbenchers, shitty pretentious plays, and other NZ on Air indulgences?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mandk (993 comments) says:

    DPF, it looks like you are so desperate to promote mock-marriage that you have lost your critical faculties.
    Does anyone really believe any of the numbers?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrei (2,652 comments) says:

    Aint it strange you can be fined in 21st century New Zealand for acts deemed ‘gravely offensive’

    From today’s news

    In passing sentence, Judge Joanna Maze said the offence was “seen as one of sacrilege to those to whom Aoraki/Mt Cook is of central cultural importance”.

    And yet defiling an institution that has been held sacred and creating the blasphemy of gay marriage is acceptable to the powers that be. In fact I suspect the fact that it is a blasphemy is what gives it the real attraction to the progressive types.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    Marriages that have been legally conducted in overseas territories are generally regarded as lawful.

    As an example, polygamous marriages cannot be conducted in NZ – but the NZ Government recognises the validity of existing polygamous marriages when visitors come to New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Social enginerring and poffery.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. GDNZ (2 comments) says:

    All the opponents of same sex marriage go crawl back under your rock. Just be aware that people will look back at people like you in 50 years time and be ashamed. Why don’t you advocate for racial segregation and spouse ownership again too while you’re at it because people like you thought that was legitimate too.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Grizz (605 comments) says:

    Say a wedding attracted 100 people. 36,000 divided by 100 is 360 per head. Not quite so unbelievable, particularly as guests will be spending some of this money themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Muggins – my thoughts exactly – my wife and I managed cut a whole zero off that figure, we spent about $3,600 on ours. (we did a lot of leg work but on the day it all looked flash enough!)

    We thought having wedding photos and a house to hang them up in would be better than having slightly flasher wedding photos but still being renters. We reckon we were right about that :-P

    And LOL at “enginerring, Poffery, polygamisys”… I love how this issue gets people so fired up they can’t type properly.

    Better start stocking up on lube, fundies… compulsory buttsex is coming and you know it. :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mandk (993 comments) says:

    GDNZ
    Opposing mock-marriage cannot be equated with favouring racial segregation or spouse ownership.
    Homosexuals and heterosexuals have precisely the same rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    mandk – if it’s mock-marriage why would you oppose it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Why don’t you advocate for racial segregation and spouse ownership again too while you’re at it because people like you thought that was legitimate too.

    Uh, outside the fact you’re accusing people randomly according to your own biases, cross-racial marriage is, was, and always will be marriage.

    “Same-sex” marriage however, is only legally marriage if you change the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wiseowl (895 comments) says:

    @GDNZ

    God Defend New Zealand ??

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    And not one of them will lose their ‘virginity’ in NZ.,,,butt that’s the aussie poofs for you!

    Marriage my arse! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Everyone will be pissed at the gays and government forever over this.

    Individuals get Married and are recognised by government as being in a hetrosexual relationship as the Marriage Act is between 1 male and 1 female.

    Now our recognition will be taken away by gays and the government.

    We never voted for this in any way, shape, form or otherwise.

    We want compensation for having our label stolen, defaced, devalued and soon to be shat on.

    There is no justification for homosexuality other than IN the law. It creates nothing.

    Man’s law – not natures. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Marriage my arse! :cool:

    I voted you up, as I rarely do, just for that phrase. :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    1/3 of the world’s nations are muslim, so s-sex marriage is not accepted there, so you’ll need a pocket guide for travelling as to where your ‘marriage’ is legitimate or not:

    NOT in America
    NOT in Australia
    NOT in 1/3 of the muslim nations of the world
    NOT…fill in blanks…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Numbers
    • 143 people diagnosed with HIV for the first time in NZ last year
    • 80 (approx) men infected through sex with other men
    • 40 (approx, at least 11 women) infected through hetero sex
    • 1 child infected through mother at birth

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874545

    Most people know this bill is not about homosexual marriage or even homosexual adoption but to score a political point.

    Those of us who do not accept the myth that everyone that everyone is born either, homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual are concerned are what the state putting society’s stamp of approval on these deviant relationships. I am also concerned about the effect on impressionable adolescents but the sexual health issues are a lot easier to prove. That is why the homosexual lobbyists and libertarians get so upset when I keep raising issues relating to sexual health.

    Sexual heath is a real problem and is going to become more of a problem in the future due to drug resistant strains of STDs. The libertarians can bury their heads in the sand if they like but this is an important issue that should not be ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Steve (North Shore) (4,562 comments) says:

    muggins@3.23
    “$3600O for a wedding,surely not.”

    Dont call me Shirley

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Same sex marriage may become law in NZ, but it will be marriage in name only. You cannot change the innate nature of it.

    [T]he underlying reality of a thing is independent of its name. The “underlying reality” means the “innate nature.” Changing a name cannot change the underlying nature of the thing designated. Those who suppose they are changing reality by changing a name are indulging in magical thinking.

    When a director on a movie set looks at the false front of a building, he can decide what kind of building he wants it to be and make it so by hanging a different sign on it. However, if one thinks he can look at a real building and claim he can decide for himself what kind of building it is without reference to its design, he is either a liar, a madman, or a liberal who has been seduced by magical thinking.

    In the same way, you are fooling yourself if you think that by relabelling something you can change it’s innate nature or design. Marriage will always be, by nature, the union of a man and a woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Marriage will always be, by nature, the union of a man and a woman.

    Except in GayKiwiBlog. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Btw, a relative does occasional work for weddings venues, and $35,000 is about right, I’d say. You can easily spend $20,000 on a wedding, and the bar tab at the reception averages about $4000 – $10,000 depending on who it is. That’s with only wine, beer, and softdrink/juices on the tab and the patrons paying for top shelf themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    you may have lots in airfares. Air NZ could offer special flights and rates :-)

    Major problem here.
    Rumour has it that most of the AnZ stewards are shall we say that way inclined, so a plane full of poof’s would be a great party but who would serve the drinks?

    On landing do you think the pilot would be able to find the right slot?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    So that’s about the soundest argument you’ve put up so far DPF.

    Its all about fucking money!!!

    Bugger me!! (Oops) ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. edhunter (547 comments) says:

    A pile of shite by any other name still looks, smells & tastes like shite, but I don’t get too close. Why play in the sewer when the playground is right next door?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Given that the average number of same sex civil unions runs at a bit over 200 a year in New Zealand, the idea that we are suddenly going to be swamped with ten times that many couples from across the ditch if marriage certificates are issued sounds like pure hyperbole. If anyone thinks there is a massive number of gay couples out there refusing to take vows unless they can get the M word on their bonking permit, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

    By the way, did you know that, even though gay men outnumber lesbians by about three to one, only about 40% of the same sex civil unions were men?! I found that very very interesting…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (8,875 comments) says:

    The wonderful new world imposed upon us by the self appointed political elite-two men or two women can get married, and helicopter pilots are prosecuted for offending mountains.

    Thanks Mr. Farrar.

    Us poor ignorant fools are forever grateful for the enlightenment and the wisdom you and your great god Progressive Government bestow upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter, more madness:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-the-games-up-for-swedens-sex-trade-8548854.html

    In Sweden, men can call imitation sex with men “marriage”, but are persecuted and prosecuted for paying women for sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Hey, if Australia misses out on the potential tourism revenue spend from marriage equality tourism due to Australian stupidity and backwardness, that’s their funeral. Serves them right for being so retrograde on this issue. And if Aussie and over lesbians and gay men decide to emigrate over here with their professional skill base and possible entrepreneurial skills and capital, so much the better.

    Personally, I can’t see why the Nats and ACT don’t launch their own version of LGBTory (UK) or the Log Cabin Republicans (US) to exploit goodwill toward centre-right social liberals from our community. It’s your decision, David, but why not? There’s no rule that says all LGBT voters have to vote centre-left, and it’s not the case overseas, certainly not in Britain and other societies where classical liberals dominate centre-right parties. Real classical liberals, that is, not neocons in bad ideological drag…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Just want we want to be associated with…

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    The health hazards of sodomy

    On “Love, Trust, Marriage & HIV”
    Posted in: Safe Sex, Features
    By Nick Laing – 6th March 2013
    Email this article
    Printer friendly page

    Letter to the editor of GayNZ

    RE: GayNZ Blog ‘Love, Trust, Marriage and HIV’

    Dear Editor,

    I read Michael Stevens’ blog “Love, Trust Marriage and HIV” with interest. He poses some challenging questions and with marriage equality hopefully just around the corner, love, trust and HIV are timely topics. But I disagree with many of his conclusions and I think some vital facts are not mentioned.

    To suggest that promoting condoms in marriage “carries a sub-text that gay men can never truly love each other, because without trust, there is no love” is ignoring a key set of facts – anal sex is 18 times more biologically risky for contracting HIV than vaginal sex. Gay men have far more anal sex than heterosexuals so we are at hugely greater risk.

    Absolutely gay men can love and commit to their husbands. But it is naïve to think that any kind of relationship comes with a guarantee that the couple will stay fully faithful. Sex outside the relationship can happen either by agreement or accident. Another interesting point to consider is that people are creatures of habit. There is plenty of evidence to say that people get used to either using or not using condoms. We know that if a person does not use condoms in a relationship they are less likely to use condoms outside the relationship.

    It can be said that condoms in a relationship actually add to trust and commitment; a relationship is a negotiation of lives based on the bond of love. In the face of an on-going HIV epidemic for gay men, negotiating the inclusion of condoms shows a level of commitment and responsibility that a couple can have towards each other.

    There is no oppression of gay men in the biological facts of HIV risk in anal sex – there are only the facts. There is no homophobia in the use of condoms – it’s simply the most effective way to keep you, your partner and the community safe from HIV.

    Nick Laing
    General Manager Operations NZAF

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/25/article_13010.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Yeah, and who’s responsible for the thousands of abortions in New Zealand each year, Chuck? Not gay men. Straight men and straight women.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Yeah, and who’s responsible for the thousands of abortions in New Zealand each year, Chuck? Not gay men. Straight men and straight women.

    Your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote