Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
The Business Case for Marriage Equality
John P. Riederer
Metropolitan State University
Author Note
The author is not affiliated with any corporation taking a position on the Minnesota Marriage
Amendment. The author is a member of Mt. Zion Temple and AFSCME Council 5, organizations that are
officially opposed to the amendment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to John P. Riederer, Graduate
Student, College of Management, Metropolitan State University, 1501 Hennepin Avenue,
Minneapolis, MN 55403. E-mail: Riedjo@metrostate.edu
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Abstract
This manuscript is a product of critical science research, triggered by the 2012 Minnesota
Marriage Amendment question. Intended as an overview, this paper provides a summary of the major
arguments for businesses to take a public stance on marriage equality for same sex couples. Publicly
advocating for the recognition of same sex marriages creates advantages in employee recruiting and
retention, and generates consumer loyalty and positive publicity. Same sex marriage also spurs
economic activity with a net revenue gain.
Keywords: marriage equality, same sex marriage, LGBT, Minnesota marriage amendment
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
On November 6, 2012, the voters of Minnesota will be asked “Shall the Minnesota Constitution
be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in Minnesota?” (MN Legislative Reference Library, 2012). This amendment question is part
of a national movement to determine the legal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
citizens in the United States. Voters in 31 states have restricted the right to marry to opposite sex
couples, either through constitutional amendment or statute (MN Legislative Reference Library, 2012).
The issue has become politically divisive both locally and nationally.
In the lead up to the vote in Minnesota, many of the state’s largest corporations, non-profit
organizations, faith communities and municipalities have taken public stances on the amendment.
Many of the state’s largest corporations have taken a public stance opposing the effort to restrict
marriage (Helgeson, 2012). Despite calls from amendment supporters to stay neutral, General Mills,
Target, St. Jude Medical, Thompson Reuters, and the majority of Fortune 500 companies based in
Minnesota have publicly opposed the amendment. In addition, over 200 Minnesota businesses have
joined MN United for All Families, a coalition of political, non-profit, faith, professional and government
organizations opposing the amendment (MN United for All Families, 2012).
There is an absence of peer reviewed research on the business case for publicly supporting
marriage equality. Research on domestic partner benefits, anti-discrimination policies, GLBT workplace
satisfaction, benefit tax laws and ballot initiatives was pieced together to answer the question, “what
is the business case for supporting marriage equality?” It is part of a broader question, “what are
the business advantages of being LBGT friendly?” which future research should seek to answer. This
research will hopefully influence employers to take a public political stance on similar issues in the
future.
Background
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Research by Gates (2011) indicates that 3.8% of the United States population identify as
LGBT. This implies a there is a population of 9 million LGBT Americans, a number roughly equal to
the population of New Jersey. Other research suggests that LGBT employees constitute between 4%
and 17% of the workforce, a larger proportion than many minority groups (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).
These employees are not protected from workplace discrimination by federal equal opportunity laws
(Johnston & Malina, 2008). According to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation [HRC](2011), it is legal
in 29 states to fire an employee for being gay, lesbian or bisexual. In 34 states, it is legal to terminate an
employee because they are transgender.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union exclusively
between a man and woman. This denies same-sex couples the legal protections and rights that
married opposite sex couples receive (Allen, 2006). DOMA also means that other states and the
federal government do not recognize same sex marriages performed in states where the practice is
legal (Cordes 2012). In 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported 1,049 different federal-
based benefits given to married people, which are denied to same sex couples, even if individual states
recognize their marriage. A same sex couple cannot file joint tax returns, or claim one member as a
dependent on federal tax returns (Knight & Comer-HaGans, 2012).
Recruiting and Retention of Employees
A business located in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage has a competitive advantage
in employee recruiting and retention, when competing on a national level. Recruiting and retaining
high quality employees is costly for corporations. Even companies that have inclusive policies, are
openly LGBT-friendly, and offer equivalent benefits can be at a disadvantage if they are located in a
state with laws unfriendly to the LGBT community (Kaplan, Wiley & Maertz, 2011). It is therefore in an
organization’s best interest to advocate for LGBT inclusive laws.
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Being publicly supportive LGBT issues is also important when recruiting employees who are not
LGBT. Many heterosexual adults prefer to work in LGBT-inclusive and diverse workplaces. In 2010, 52%
of heterosexual adults surveyed said it was very or extremely important that they work for a company
offering equal health benefits to all employees. Over 25% of heterosexual adults surveyed said it was
extremely or very important that they work for an employer known to recruit employees of diverse
backgrounds. One in four heterosexual adults said it was very or extremely important that they work
for a company that supports organizations that represent the diversity of the workforce and customers
(Harris Interactive, 2010). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the diversity and inclusion are more
important for younger and more educated adults. These are exactly the type of employees that many
organizations see as critical to recruit.
The 2009 Out & Equal survey asked a weighted sample of 2,775 adults (2,334 self-identified
as heterosexual and 362 self-identified as LGBT) a series of attitude and belief questions regarding
laws, workplace policies, culture and behavior. The section related to the differences in state policies
with regards to employment decisions began with a statement about same sex marriage being legal
in 6 states and the District of Columbia. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with a series of
statements, after the prefacing statement, “Let’s assume you live in one of those states (regardless of
where you live now or your current marital status.).”
The first statement read, “Other factors being equal, I would prefer a job with an employer in
a state where same sex marriages are recognized over an employer in a state that does not recognize
same sex marriages.” Of the respondents, 79% who identified as Gay/Lesbian agreed. Only 8% of the
general population and 4% of the Gay/Lesbian responses were negative (Out & Equal, 2009).
Retaining highly qualified, skilled employees is important to employers. Many corporations
have locations in multiple states and a mobile workforce. In these organizations, employees may be
transferred involuntarily to meet the company’s needs, or voluntarily for a promotion. In the same
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
series of questions, the 2009 Out & Equal survey stated, “I would consider changing jobs if my employer
required me to transfer to a state where same sex marriages were not recognized.” This was followed by
the statement, “I would consider declining a job promotion if it required me to transfer to a state where
same sex marriages were not recognized.”
The first statement had 36% of GLBT respondents agree. The second statement had 32%
of GLBT respondents in agreement. In responses to both statements, lesbian women showed the
importance of marriage recognition to that subgroup, with 45% in agreement with the first question
(only 16% disagreed), and 49% in agreement with the second (only 17% disagreed).
There is a limited amount of real world data on this matter as well. In 2009, Gates studied the
effects of Massachusetts’ 2005 recognition of marriage equality. A statewide survey of same sex couples
found that 8% had at least one partner move to the state, with 51% indicating that marriage equality
and LGBT rights were a factor, and 20% stating this was the only factor in their move. Massachusetts
went from a net loss of 602 individuals in same sex couples in the two years prior to same sex marriage
recognition, to a net gain of 119. What is important about the net gain of these people, is that a
significant portion of them represent the “creative class”; the young, mobile and highly educated
individuals, “who are vital to economic development in a post-industrial economy” (Gates, 2009).
Gates found that creative class individuals in same-sex couples were 2.5 times more likely to move to
Massachusetts following marriage equality than before (2009).
Economic Impacts
Businesses in some industries will benefit directly if their states allow marriage equality.
Marriages often result in expensive weddings, with out of town guests staying in hotels, dining out,
renting vehicles and other activities that often generate special tax revenue for state and municipal
governments. A survey of legally married same sex couples in Massachusetts and the Netherlands
found that 68% had at least 21 guests in attendance at their weddings (Lee Badgett, 2011). The
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
increased spending benefits not only the businesses providing goods and services, but all citizens and
corporations based in the state. The additional tax revenue generated should reduce the burden on
resident taxpayers funding state services and infrastructure improvements.
States that recognize same sex marriage see increases in spending related to weddings, for
resident couples, as well as those choosing destination weddings. Many same sex couples have chosen
to hold in states that recognize their right to marry, even if they reside in a state that does not. Of
the 2,020 same sex couples married in Iowa in the first year the state achieved marriage equality, just
815 were residents (Kastanis, Lee Badgett, & Herman, 2011). By granting marriage equality, Iowa has
become a wedding destination.
A 2012 study of the economic impact that same sex marriage would have on Australia
conservatively estimated that it would boost the national economy $161 million USD in three years, and
found plausible estimates of a $742 million impact, when travel and spending related to weddings and
destination weddings was included. The average amount spent for a wedding was projected at $9,050
(USD) (Lee Badgett & Smith, 2012).
Closer to home, a study conservatively estimated that taxes in state of Washington generated
by same sex weddings would offset the increase in state tax deductions, with a net gain of over $18.4
million in tax revenues. (Kastanis, Badgett & Herman, 2012) The first year of marriage equality in Iowa
gave an estimated $12 to $13 million boost to the state and local economies, with gains of $850,000
to $930,000 in state and local sales tax revenues (Kastanis et. al, 2011). In 2004, it was projected
that national marriage equality would generate $16.8 billion in expenditures. The wedding industry
generates at least $70 billion annually. On average, same sex couples in the United States spend 25%
more than opposite sex couples on their weddings (Konnoth, Lee Badgett, & Sears, 2011).
Simplification of Employee Benefits
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
In an effort to be fair to all employees and attract to LBGT job candidates, employers have been
increasingly providing LBGT employees with domestic partner benefits. Domestic partner benefits (DPB)
are usually health insurance, but often include “soft benefits,” such as bereavement leave, employee
assistance programs, relocation assistance, supplemental insurance and FMLA-type leave (HRC, 2011,
p. 26). In 1982, The Village Voice was the first employer to offer DPB (Raeburn, 2004, p. 48). Large
companies began offering them in the 1990’s, despite the practice being highly controversial. These
innovators included Microsoft, Disney, and IBM (Cordes, 2012).
By 2006, 51% of the Fortune 500 companies offered benefit parity for LBGT employees’
partners (Shepherd, 2006). Chuang, Church & Ophir (2011) attribute this to the normative mechanism
of press coverage of benefits. For many job seekers, “the inclusion of DPB has become a litmus test for
determining high-quality employers” (Cordes, 2012). In addition, at least three states and the District of
Columbia require employers to provide equivalent benefits for domestic partners (Solomon & Tiemann,
2009). The 2012 Corporate Equality Index found 89% of employers rated (representing the majority of
the Fortune 500) offered health benefits to same sex domestic partners. This represents a 20% jump in
the last decade (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2011).
Employers are often surprised at the low enrollment and low cost of providing DPB. The city
of Columbus, Ohio estimated that 0.009% of employees enrolled for DPB when offered. Similarly, The
Ohio State University estimated enrollment of 0.006% of employees. Enrollments are low because most
domestic partners already have coverage through their own employers. Costs for DPB coverage are
lower than anticipated, because those eligible tend to be younger and healthier. In particular, same sex
couples have a low incidence of pregnancy (Cordes, 2012).
There are several challenges that employers face when offering DPB. The first is that there is no
definition of “Domestic Partner” in federal or most states’ laws, and the patchwork of local ordinances
means “there are no uniform criteria for identifying domestic partner relationships (Knight Comer-
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
HaGans, 2012). Most often, employers are left to define a domestic partnership. Criteria usually include
cohabitation, financial and social interdependence, and standards similar to state marriage laws, with
the exception of sex (e.g. both parties are of age and mental capacity to voluntarily give consent, neither
is already married, nor are they of close blood relation)(Kulow, 2001). Many employers have resorted
to sworn affidavits to prove eligibility. Having to inquire so deeply into the intimate personal lives of
employees is a situation many HRM professionals dread (Solomon & Tiemann 2009).
Another challenge to DPB is federal tax laws. Because of DOMA, even legally married same sex
couples are not allowed to file federal tax returns jointly, claim a spouse as a dependent, or receive
benefits through a partner’s employer tax-free (Abrigo, 2007). “Federal law requires employers to
impute the fair market value of health care coverage provided to an employee’s domestic partner as
income to the employee that is subject to federal income tax.” This “two-tiered tax system” means
employees receiving DPB, in opposite or same sex relationships that are not recognized as marriage, pay
on average $1,069 annually. That represents $178 million in lost payroll taxes for unmarried couples. In
addition, employers pay $57 million in additional taxes each year, because of this unequal treatment of
DPB (Lee Badgett, 2007).
States have adopted conflicting tax laws regarding DPB. Some states have their own version
of DOMA, imputing fair market value of DPB as income for state taxes. Nine states and the District of
Columbia have passed laws exempting DPB from state taxes (Solomon & Tiemann , 2009). In response
to federal taxation of DPB, a small number of employers have begun “grossing up” the salaries of
employees receiving those benefits, to offset the additional taxes incurred.(CITATION)
Complying with differing federal, state and municipal laws regarding DPB is a headache for
employers, especially in situations where employees commute or do business across state lines. In
November 2011, 70 major U.S. corporations and an assortment of law firms, professional organizations
and municipalities, including Microsoft, Nike, and the city of New York, filed an Amicus brief advocating
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
for the repeal of DOMA. Among their major arguments was the cost of calculating fair market value for
DPB and calculating it as taxable income (Tu, 2011).
Market Value
A final reason that corporations choose to publicly support marriage equality and other LGBT
issues is the effect that it has on market value. Public support of LGBT causes generates publicity,
especially in LGBT-targeted media. In 2010, the buying power of American LBGT adults was estimated
at $743 Billion. A 2011 survey by Harris Interactive found that 71% of LGBT adults had brand loyalty that
trumped price increases, to companies they perceived as supporting LGBT causes (Harris Interactive,
2011).
Companies may be concerned with backlash and boycotts from anti-gay activists. In particular,
Christian groups such as Focus on the Family and the American Family Foundation, have called for
boycotts when companies offered DPB to LGBT employees, sponsored “gay” events, promoted LGBT
causes, or included same sex couples in their advertisements (Greene, France, & Kiley, 2005). Research
has shown that these boycotts do not negatively impact the revenue of parent companies (Henneman,
2006). In fact, bowing to the demands of such groups can result in greater consumer and employee
backlash. Microsoft discovered this when they withdrew support of a Washington state’s HB1515 bill
(to extend antidiscrimination laws to include “alternate sexual orientations”) after threatened boycotts
and protests led by a regionally influential Christian leader. Many LGBT employees felt betrayed and
several resigned in protest. The company quickly readopted its public stance on the issue (Greene, et.
al., 2005) Henneman (2006) concludes that “right-wing Christian leaders don’t seem to wield much clout
in today’s marketplace.”
For many consumers, as well as business partners, a firm’s participation and score in the
Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI) is an important consideration. “Even among
nonparticipants, the CEI has helped create market norms where LGBT workplace equality is essential to
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
staying relevant among competitors” (HRC, 2011, p. 6). The Human Rights Campaign includes positive
engagement of the external LGBT community as an important factor in its CEI ratings (15 points out of
100). Official or public anti-LGBT statements or incidents result in a 25 point deduction (HRC, 2011, p. 2).
A 2010 study by Wang and Schwarz tested hypotheses relating a company’s stock performance
with ratings on the CEI. While unable to statistically prove their hypothesis that positive stock
performance had positive association with CEI score, they soundly disproved their negative hypothesis.
An improvement in a firm’s CEI score had no correlation with poor stock performance (Wang & Schwarz,
2010). In short, supporting LGBT causes doesn’t hurt a corporation’s bottom line.
Conclusion
In November 1992, 55.3% of Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative named Amendment
2. This amendment to the state constitution stripped lesbian, gay or bisexual persons of any existing
municipal protections as a minority, and prohibited future laws against discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. Amendment 2 unleashed “the largest civil rights boycott in U.S. history.” Consumers
nationwide chose not to travel to or purchase products made in Colorado. Major conventions cancelled
bookings and diverted them to more inclusive states. Several companies nixed plans to relocate or move
major operations to the state, including a publishing company that would have brought its $100 million
headquarters and 6,000 high-paying jobs into the state (Sen & Hill, 2006).
Amendment 2 was declared unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in December
1994, ending the boycott. Estimates of the damage range from $40 million to $120 million for the 13-
month period. This does not count the long-term damage of being labeled a “Hate State” nationally.
Even companies that openly opposed Amendment 2 incurred damage. “Economic sanctions stemming
from an unfavorable minority civil rights climate legislation… are unlikely to distinguish between those
businesses that have antidiscrimination policies in place and those that do not” (Sen & Hill, 2006).
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Many of America’s largest corporations choose to take a public stance on LGBT equality.
Minnesota companies who oppose the state constitutional amendment, to narrowly define marriage to
opposite sex couples, do so for as many reasons as there are LGBT employees in their ranks. Marriage
equality is good for recruiting and retaining an educated, skilled workforce of both straight and LGBT
employees. It stimulates the economy of a state, encouraging spending that provides state and local
tax revenues. Granting same sex couples the right to marry and repealing DOMA will make doing
business easier, in terms of payroll and benefit calculations. Supporting marriage equality generates
positive association and brand loyalty among an influential and financially significant subsection of the
population. Finally, being associated with a state that creates an LGBT discriminatory climate is bad for
business.
On November 6, 2012, Minnesota voters will choose to pass or reject a change to their state
constitution that restricts civil rights decisions in the future. Whether the amendment passes or fails,
it will not be the last issue relating to marriage equality in Minnesota or the nation. State statute that
forbids recognition of same sex unions will remain in place, until the law is repealed in favor of marriage
equality. Corporations will continue to have an influential role in society. It is to their advantage to
support marriage equality.
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
References
Abrigo, H. B. (2007). The unintended consequence of providing employee benefits for domestic
partners. Journal of Pension Benefits: Issues In Administration, 15(1), 18-20.
Allen, D. W. (2006). An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws. Harvard Journal Of Law &
Public Policy, 29(3), 949-980.
Cordes, C. L. (2012). The business case for offering domestic partner benefits. Compensation & Benefits
Review, 44(2), 110-116. doi:10.1177/0886368712450984
Gates, G. J. (2009). Marriage equality and the creative class [White paper]. Retrieved from http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-MA-Creative-Class-May-2009.pdf
Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? [White paper].
Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-
People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
Greene, J., France, M., & Kiley, D. (2005). Culture wars hit corporate America. Businessweek, (3934), 90-
93.
Harris Interactive. (2010, October 4). Majority of Americans believe gay and lesbian couples in
committed relationships should receive equal workplace benefits as heterosexual married
couples [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/
PressReleases/tabid/446/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1506/ArticleId/577/Default.aspx
Harris Interactive. (2011, October 27). LGBT adults strongly prefer brands that support causes important
to them and that also offer equal workplace benefits [Press release]. Retrieved from http://
www.witeckcombs.com/news/releases/20111027_out%26equal.pdf
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Helgeson, B. (2012, August 11). Businesses drawn into fight over marriage amendment. Star Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/165812836.html
Henneman, T. (2006). The breakdown of boycotts. Advocate, (967), 24-26.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2011, December 7). Corporate equality index 2012. Retrieved
from http://issuu.com/humanrightscampaign/docs/corporateequalityindex_2012
Johnston, D., & Malina, M. A. (2008). Managing sexual orientation diversity: The impact on firm value.
Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 602-625.
Kaplan, D. M., Wiley, J. W., & Maertz, C. P. (2011). The role of calculative attachment in the relationship
between diversity climate and retention. Human Resource Management, 50(2), 271-287.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20413
Kastanis, A., Lee Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011). Estimating the economic boost of marriage
equality in Iowa: Sales tax [White paper]. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/
wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Kastanis-Herman-IA-Economic-Boost-Dec-2011.pdf
Kastanis, A., Lee Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2012). The economic impact of extending
marriage to same-sex couples in Washington state [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Kastanis-Badgett-Herman-
WASalesTaxImpact-Jan-20121.pdf
Knight, M. A., & Comer-HaGans, D. (2012). Domestic partner benefits. Public Personnel Management,
41(3), 493-504.
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Konnoth, C. J., Lee Badgett, M. V., & Sears, R. B. (2011). Spending on weddings by same-sex couples
in the United States [White paper]. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/Badgett-Sears-Konnoth-FirstYearWeddingSpending-Jul-2011.pdf
Kulow, M. (2001). Same Sex Marriages: How Will They Impact Employers?. Journal Of Employment
Discrimination Law, 3(2), 93.
Lee Badgett, M. V. (2007). Unequal taxes on equal benefits [White paper]. Retrieved from http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-UnequalTaxesOnEqualBenefits-
Dec-2007.pdf
Lee Badgett, M. V. (2011). Social inclusion and the value of marriage equality in Massachusetts
and the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 316-334. Retrieved from http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Social-Inclusion-Jul-2011.pdf
Lee Badgett, M. V. & Smith, J. (2012). The economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples
in Australia [White paper]. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/
uploads/Badgett-Smith-Econ-Impact-Marriage-Feb-2012.pdf
Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. (2012, October). Resources on Minnesota issues: Same-sex
marriage in Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?
issue=gay
MN United for All Families. (2012). Our coalition. Retrieved from http://mnunited.org/coalition/
Out & Equal. (2009, October 5). Seven out of ten LGBT adults given the choice prefer jobs in states that
recognize same-sex marriages [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.witeckcombs.com/
news/releases/20091005_out%26equal.pdf
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Running Head: THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Out & Equal. (2012). The business case for marriage equality [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://
www.outandequal.org/documents/BusinessCaseforMarriageEquality.pdf
Raeburn, N. C. (2004). Changing corporate America from inside out: Lesbian and gay workplace rights.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ragins, B., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived
workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(6), 1244-1261.
Sen, S., & Hill, R. (1996). Marketing and minority civil rights: The case of Amendment 2 and the Colorado
boycott. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2), 311-318.
Shepherd, L. (2006). Majority of big firms covering domestic partners. Employee Benefit News, 20(12), 1-
36.
Tu, J. I. (2011, November 4). Microsoft, Starbucks among 70 major organizations supporting challenge
of DOMA. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/microsoftpri0/
2016691795_microsoft_starbucks_among_70_major_organizations_s.html
Wang, P., & Schwarz, J. L. (2010). Stock price reactions to GLBT nondiscrimination policies. Human
Resource Management, 49(2), 195-216. doi:10.1002/hrm.20341.
Copyright © 2012 John P. Riederer
Posts
