Agents hope same-sex marriages will spark real estate sales
California ruling opens door to new marketing opportunities
By Glenn Roberts Jr., Tuesday, June 24, 2008.Bookmarking Sites
A court ruling that legalizes same-sex marriages in California may not cure the state's housing slump -- but it could drive more real estate transactions.
Wellsford Realty, a full-service real estate company in San Diego, Calif., announced a "Pride Promotion" that offers commission rebates to assist newly married same-sex couples to offset wedding-related expenses.
In offering the promotion, the brokerage has teamed with a company that provides wedding-planning services. In order to qualify for the rebate, same-sex couples must purchase a single-family home or condo using the services of a Wellsford Realty agent, and the couple can receive up to 33 percent of their agent's commission amount in the form of a cash rebate.
April Sands, a spokeswoman for Wellsford Realty, said last week that the promotion hasn't received much response yet, but noted that the marriage ruling is very new.
A panel of California Supreme Court judges, in a 4-3 ruling last month, found that language in state law that limits marriages to a union between a man and a woman "is unconstitutional and must be stricken," and the first same-sex marriage in the state following this ruling was held June 16.
"We're hoping that this does stimulate the San Diego market," Sands said of the company's promotion. "It's something that kind of adds to the overall momentum of what's going on with same-sex marriages."
A November ballot initiative in the state seeks to overturn the court's ruling by declaring a ban on same-sex marriages. If voters pass the measure, it will be up to the courts to decide whether the state would honor the same-sex marriages that began last month, though this measure is expected to fail.
An estimated 100,000 same-sex couples live in California, according to GayRealEstate.com, a site that offers a directory of real estate professionals who serve the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community of buyers and sellers.
An online announcement at that site charged that some couples "have been subjected to both overt and covert discrimination when it comes to the practice of real estate and the business of mortgage lending. Some have been told they cannot rent together. Others have been told that they cannot both put their names on a homeowner's insurance policy." The site's founder could not be reached for comment.
The announcement notes that Massachusetts in 2004 became the first state to legalize same-sex marriages.
Michael Pallares, a real estate agent at Metro Realty Corp. in Boston, said that the passage of a civil union law in Massachusetts did lead to more interest and inquiries from prospective buyers living outside the area.
"I can't say there was a huge increase," he said, "because the market was pretty hot in general" when the law passed and it was difficult to gauge whether there was a surge in same-sex couples moving to the area to take advantage of the marriage law.
Sticker shock overwhelmed the desire to live in a gay-friendly area in some cases, said Pallares, who markets himself as a gay-friendly Realtor.
"If they were coming from San Francisco they were presently surprised (at the prices)," he said, but if they were coming from "Tuskalooska" they were definitely taken aback.
"You're not going to move to a state, whether there is legal (same-sex) marriage or not, unless it makes sense economically," he said. "It's dollars and cents, when it comes right down to it. It's a huge purchase for a lot of first-time homeowners."
The marriage law in Massachusetts didn't have any noticeable impact on mortgages and title insurance, he said, as lenders previously looked at credit jointly for unmarried couples buying a home together. "The marriage certificate doesn't matter to the underwriter."
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), a New England legal rights organization, has posted information to its Web site about key points for couples considering same-sex marriage.
Marriage means that couples who own property together "will not have the ability to transfer property at divorce free of tax consequences, thus making it more difficult (and potentially depleting the couple's assets) to achieve a fair balance of assets, for example, and in some states the conduct of parties during the marriage "can affect the division of property disadvantageously to the party who acted against the marriage."
GLAD also notes that some legal rules related to the transfer of property at divorce "are not available to same-sex couples because of federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)," passed in 1996, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws" and provide that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states.
Same-sex marriages will probably lead to more home sales in California, said Patrick Lowell, a Realtor with Zephyr Real Estate in San Francisco -- and same-sex divorces will also bring more transactions to real estate agents.
Lowell said that same-sex marriages are so new to California that he hasn't specifically marketed to newly married same-sex couples, adding, "that is a good target community" for real estate professionals.
Many agents, he said, will probably wait for the outcome of the November ballot initiative before investing heavily in marketing to same-sex newlyweds.
"A lot of agents are waiting for this to play out," he said.
Same-sex marriages will likely trigger more home purchases as individuals decide to sell separately owned homes and move "into one dream home," he said.
"I think it's going to trigger some market activity. Up until now, people have been hesitant to combine assets. I have a feeling we're going to see more purchases and sales because of it."
He added, "The other piece: What about gay divorce? I have handled many transactions because of divorce -- not that divorce is a good thing, but there always ends up being a house that needs to be sold."
Lowell received a notice from a title company related to the same-sex ruling that assures the title process is basically unchanged for same-sex married couples. "They're just noting that you don't need to prove that you had a gay wedding," he said. "They don't ask for any kind of proof of marriage."
A San Francisco-area sales manager for North American Title Co. sent an e-mail message to real estate professionals last week stating, "Generally speaking, underwriting guidelines for these transactions (by same-sex married couples) will be the same as transactions for heterosexual couples."
And, "The manner in which title is taken in a deed will be the same as our current practices for married persons."
Lowell said that there are a range of new Web sites springing up for same-sex weddings, and that will bring new marketing opportunities for real estate professionals. "There is a ton of opportunity," he said.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Add A Comment
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Chris Giles on June 24, 2008 - 1:57pm.
Should we profit from something that is wrong? And I can and have the right to say that it is wrong just as much as anyone has the right to say that it is not wrong. This is America everyone has the right to do what they believe is the right thing. I chose to believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, therefore I believe that same sex marriage is wrong. Would I sell a home to a same sex couple? Yes, and I would treat them like anyone else but I do not look at it as a marketing opportunity, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"(voltair) This is what our country is founded on the right to agree and the right to disagree, freedom of speech. I may not support this but I do support the freedom for which everyone has to fight for what they believe in, right or wrong.
Submitted by Karen Rice on June 24, 2008 - 2:03pm.
Well, I have an issue with the idea of offering special incentives to gay people to help offset their wedding costs? What the heck is that? Do they offer the same thing to hetero newlyweds too?
How one feels about same sex marriage aside, is it right to offer someone a special deal just because they're gay?
Northeast PA / Pike & Wayne County Real Estate Agent
Lake Wallenpaupack Real Estate Website
Submitted by Damien Hall on June 24, 2008 - 2:56pm.
I agree that same sex marriage shouldn't be used as a marketing ploy. The industry must really be lagging to come up with these tactics to sell homes.
www.TheDCInvestor.blogspot.com
Submitted by Rob Aubrey on June 24, 2008 - 3:20pm.
I think the article should be title "Some Agents" not agents.
Submitted by Herman Salazar on June 24, 2008 - 5:39pm.
This is for Chris Giles... your belief is religious based... leave it at that! For Karen Rice... there's no need to offer "special incentives" to hetero newlyweds... heteros have been marrying for thousands of years... it's not new... so now that Gays can marry... it's NEW and anything to make a buck - so be it! For Damien Hall... the industry is lagging! And, for Rob Aubrey... TRUE, I AGREE.. the article should be titled, "Some Agents", not Agents...
It's one company making the "special incentive" not all real estate companies... but if everyone else joins in... no big deal. It is about making a buck! No matter what!
Submitted by J Philip Faranda on June 24, 2008 - 8:29pm.
The fact of the matter is that marriage is good for the economy. Married people buy homes together, as well as plenty of other things in higher numbers than single people do. Are your beliefs so sacred that you are willing to have a weaker economy to justify them?
We should all remember that we are here to help people find a place to live, regardless of their politics, religion, race, creed, or, yes, their sexual orientation.
I say leave your mores and judgments at the door and pull out a purchase offer sheet.
Submitted by Diana Bourgeois on June 25, 2008 - 3:09am.
It seems from reading Wellsfords proposal that they are really interested in giving gay couples the same advantages as straight couples. They realize that gay couples will need residency...but in reality, they went the extra step to provide an agency to plan the wedding reception or honeymoon which seems to say they are interested in the want to have a great marriage. After all, they could have just stopped at the rebate on the sell if they were not interested in the equality. I applaud you for asking the question...most people just accepted that it was a marketing game and moved on!
Submitted by Brian Larson on June 25, 2008 - 5:09am.
I have no problem with gay marriage (if you're opposed to gay marriage, don't have one), and I strongly support fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I don't know if California is one of the states that has prohibited discrimination on that basis, but if it is, I suspect a brokerage promotion directed at gay newlyweds would violate it. For example, under Minnesota fair housing law, it is unlawful to offer different terms in a real estate or brokerage transaction to customers based upon their sexual orientation. That law cuts both ways; i.e., it is unlawful to favor either gays or straights - which is exactly how it should be. How is this promotion any different than saying that black newlyweds or Latino newlyweds, or indeed, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual newlyweds get a deal? I'd take my brokerage and marriage business elsewhere, thanks.
Submitted by chis eliopoulos on June 25, 2008 - 7:49am.
I do not think that it will have any effect on the market.
If there is any effect, it will be negative.
Gay people are (in the majority) financially better off than the same social level straight people. They do not have the expense of raising kids.
And yes, for any one that wants to argue, kids are expensive (I love them as I am one of them but they are expensive).
Now if you have two gay people that had two houses, when they get married they will need only one. In a market like this, I doubt if they will be selling the spare house to "stimulate" the market.
Thus the whole article deals with wishful thinking.
Submitted by chis eliopoulos on June 25, 2008 - 8:08am.
Submitted by Chris Giles on June 24, 2008 - 1:57pm.
"I chose to believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman"
Because you choose to believe it does not make it right.
Your beliefs serve you and no one else.
Beliefs and morality are relative terms--they are like the law. They serve ONLY the interest of the people in power that adapt them and try to force them on others as been right.
They have nothing to do with REALITY.
These are stats on the U.S. as a whole:
A recent government study found that about 59% of marriages for women under age 18 end in divorce or separation within 15 years, compared with 36% of those married at age 20 or older.
Here are the results of your belief as "a sacred covenant".
Add to that the devastating economic and emotional consequences, and the holiness of it goes away very fast. The results of a divorce are downright EVIL.
Submitted by Bob Wilson on June 25, 2008 - 12:53pm.
WOW!!!! You know if I were to begin a campaign that stated "heterosexual couple promotion - we'll pay for the honeymoon" The D.R.E. in Calif. would yank my license or fine me so severely that I could no longer be in business. This is a clear violation of State and Federal law to promote a particular sexual orientation and benefit them. THIS IS WRONG REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK OR BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG.
Submitted by Bob Wilson on June 25, 2008 - 2:03pm.
Re: previous post. I neglected to indicate that I am a loan officer with a lender in the Mother Lode foothills in California. California D.R.E. laws require all loan officers to be Realtors.
www.financialaccessinc.net
Thank you.
Bob Wilson
Sonora California
Submitted by Karen Rice on June 26, 2008 - 4:28pm.
The legality of gay marriage is irrelevant. If it would be illegal to offer the same incentive to a hetero couple or a white couple or a black couple, then it should be illegal to offer it to a gay couple.
Hetero newlyweds would like help just as much as gay ones. Offer it to all newlyweds, or all first time home buyers - why does their sexual orientation have to come into play at all?
Reverse discrimination is just as disgusting, IMHO.
Northeast PA / Pike & Wayne County Real Estate Agent
Lake Wallenpaupack Real Estate Website
Submitted by Ralph M on July 7, 2008 - 7:14am.
This whole article should be yanked. Shame on inman for even publicizing this.
As real estate professionals, this whole article falls under descrimination, regardless of your beliefs.
You put the carrot out there and the real estate professionals bit it.
Descrimination !
Talk about "lawsuit magnet". Anyone who post to this article in any such way has left them open for a lawsuit from their own state, Doj, or their own client....
Bad article!