Massachusetts and Connecticut are reaping the rewards of offering marriage equality.

In five years, the Bay State has reaped more then $111 million in economic benefits from gay and lesbian weddings, with the average ceremony running about $7,400 with many topping out over $20,000.

Meanwhile, many New Yorkers are hitting the rails and heading to Connecticut to marry.

All 69 same-sex couples married in Greenwich, CT, in 2009 were from out of state and neighboring Stanford has had 71 gay and lesbian weddings for non-residents since marriage equality became the law last November.

These weddings represent money and tax dollars that could come to New York, if only marriage were available to all New York couples.

Minnesota State Senator Scott Dibble understands what marriage means to couples–and part of what marriage means is economic security.

“We’re in a time of economic crisis, and it’s difficult for everyone,” Dibble says, “more difficult for those families that don’t have access to those basic provisions for economic security.”

He says examples include the joint ownership of property; joint credit; the ability to share health-care benefits with a partner; and inheritance rights.

“People are beginning to understand that the rights and benefits and responsibilities and economic relationships that couples have with each other as a result of marriage or marriage-type laws are really basic to our ability to be able to provide for each other,” he adds.

“It’s really coming to light in context of this economic difficulty that we’re in the midst of.”

In these tough economic times, all couples deserve the financial and emotional stability that marriage provides.

In an editorial, the Plattsburg Press-Republican asks what role Government should play in legislating people’s own opinions about marriage equality.

Assemblywoman Janet Duprey has it right. Same-sex marriage is a civil-rights issue, and on that, the government has only one choice: to come down heavily in favor of the civil rights of everyone.

Maybe your religion frowns on homosexuality. That might certainly affect how you and your fellow worshippers feel about the issue. But it wouldn’t be any of the government’s concern.

Maybe your personal morality says marriage should be only between a man and a woman. That would surely dictate that you personally oppose homosexual marriage. But it shouldn’t propel the government into making a law against it.

Possibly, you oppose homosexual marriages because benefits such as tax breaks would accrue to more people at your expense as a taxpayer. There, perhaps the government has some soul-searching to do. But if it’s going to be fair about things, why should sexual inclination be the litmus test for who gets benefits and who doesn’t?

Their conclusion: all New Yorkers should have the same right to marry under the law–and that’s the right one.