BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Marriage Equality Is Inevitable

This article is more than 10 years old.

Marriage equality is going to happen in this country. It's only a matter of time.

For some, this reality is exciting, uplifting and extraordinary. For others, it is scary, frightening, even unfathomable. But no matter your opinion on the subject, this truth is inexorable: Gays and lesbians will one day be able to wed legally in all 50 states. Our relationships will finally be recognized as valid under the law and protected by our government. And America will be a stronger country for it.

How did we get here? And how did this happen so quickly? Change is not easy and usually takes much time, particularly a shift as dramatic as this one. But the fight for marriage equality has been particularly quick.

A generation ago, few thought it possible that gays and lesbians would ever be able to get married. When my good friend Evan Wolfson, the "godfather" of marriage equality, began arguing his case 20 years ago, most LGBT leaders privately said, "Evan, you're a great guy, but enough with this marriage stuff, it's never going to happen, and you're hurting the movement." Fortunately, he and others kept pressing forward, and in just a few months, marriage equality will be legal in at least four states--including Iowa, in the heartland of America.

Why is the freedom to marry so important? For starters, marriage is the most universally recognized social institution in the world. So if the ultimate goal is to achieve full equality for gays and lesbians in all aspects of society, then achieving equality in this most prominent arena will certainly go far toward realizing this vision. More important, marriage is, at its core, a public recognition of a private commitment that two people in love make to each other, a commitment that transcends gender.

At the end of the day, all gays and lesbians--and their many straight allies--are looking for is basic respect for themselves as human beings, equal to any other human being, no more and no less.

Is that such an unreasonable request? After all, this country was founded on the promise that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Along the way, this great country of ours has had to make changes to ensure that everyone can realize this American dream--most notably, ensuring that blacks and women are afforded the same rights and privileges as everyone else. And now America is realizing the same needs to be done for gays and lesbians, a group that some argue is the last one many believe it is acceptable to discriminate against.

The explanation for such a dramatic shift is actually quite simple: Americans began to come out--in droves. Suddenly, it seemed, gays and lesbians were everywhere: friends, family members, co-workers, characters on TV and in the movies, celebrities. Seven in 10 Americans know someone who is gay, and nearly half say they have a gay friend, colleague or family member, up from less than 40% only a decade ago. (For more on this topic in the polls, please see "Gay Marriage And Public Opinion.")

Of course, the number of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that people started living openly and being honest with others about their sexual orientation. As soon as "mainstream" America started realizing just how many gay people they knew, Americans became much more accepting.

But still, isn't it a big cultural leap from accepting gays and lesbians in general to supporting the freedom to marry? Actually, no. The primary reason cited for opposition to marriage is religion. But marriage equality isn't about religion at all. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

No one, not even the most ardent supporters of marriage, suggests that any particular religious institution be required to perform a wedding between two men or two women if that would go against that institution's religious teaching. After all, who would require Baptists to take communion, or Jews to accept Christ as their savior?

Religions have plenty of prohibitions against actions that are perfectly legal in our society, including working on the Sabbath, eating shellfish, drinking alcohol or coffee or celebrating Halloween. Would anyone think to suggest that these activities be prevented by law simply because some people's religions are opposed? Of course not.

What many people tend to forget is that marriage in our society is a legal contract between two individuals that is sanctioned by the state. Couples may choose to celebrate their wedding in a church, synagogue or mosque, and have a religious leader perform the ceremony, but in order for that marriage to be legal the officiant must be recognized by the state.

And while religions certainly have rules that married couples are supposed to follow, it is the state that decides who may get married and who may not, when marriages begin and end, and what rights, benefits and privileges are awarded to married people. There are currently over 1,100 rights, protections and responsibilities guaranteed to married couples by the federal government alone--rights that are denied to gay couples no matter how long they have been together.

Many people suggest that gays and lesbians should simply accept civil unions in the place of marriage. They argue that if it's just a matter of rights, we should create a separate institution that could serve as a vehicle to deliver the same benefits of marriage. And with more than two in three Americans supporting some form of legal status for gay couples, shouldn't we just accept civil unions, be grateful and move on? What's in a name, anyhow?

The truth is, everything. Marriage needs no explanation; everybody gets it. Most people have no idea what a civil union is, making it a terrible way to guarantee anything. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission concluded that civil unions have "not delivered equality to LGBT couples ... a separate scheme does not create equality." The Supreme Courts of California and Connecticut came to the same conclusion, as did the Vermont State Legislature when last month it overrode the governor's veto to establish marriage equality, effective Sept. 1 of this year.

The problem with much of the discussion around marriage equality and civil unions is the false choice between marriage, civil unions or nothing at all. It allows many well-meaning individuals to avoid grappling with the M-word and still feel they are being supportive. But "separate but equal" never works. Didn't we learn that the hard way in the last century?

Particularly encouraging in the debate over marriage is the dramatic increase in support among young people. A majority (53%) of those aged 18 to 34 already support the freedom to marry--and in some states, like New York, that figure jumps to 71%. Nearly half of all adults nationwide now believe gays and lesbians should have the freedom to marry, almost double the figure recorded just a decade ago.

Not surprisingly, then, we are beginning to see significant cracks in the GOP's opposition. In his first public address since the election, John McCain's former chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, spoke out forcefully in favor of marriage at the Log Cabin Republican convention, warning his party that "if you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian."

Meghan McCain, speaking at the same gathering, was equally clear: "I am a pro-life, pro-gay marriage Republican. So if anyone is still confused, let me spell it out for you: I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married."

I'm delighted to hear conservatives step up on this issue, as I've always found it strange that the party of limited government and personal responsibility is opposed to marriage. It's been said that Republicans want government small enough to fit in your bedroom. Perhaps this sentiment is beginning to change.

And with good reason. I was recently on Fox News, and during the break asked my fellow guests--all prominent conservatives--how they justify denying gays and lesbians the freedom to marry when they agree that government should have less influence in our lives and that we need to do all we can to strengthen our families and communities.

I was met by stunned silence. The reality is that the freedom to marry is entirely consistent with the fundamentals of the Republican Party. Last time I checked, allowing two men or two women to marry will only strengthen the free market. They've got to buy a cake, right?

What we need now is leadership, and that needs to come from Democrats too. The party that says it stands for gay and lesbian equality must support the freedom to marry. While a handful of senators and representatives support marriage, including the Speaker of the House, we need far more of our national leaders to step up--including President Obama, who was himself the son of a marriage that was illegal in 22 states when he was born. He did leave the door ajar, writing in The Audacity of Hope that I "remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided. ... I may have been infected with society's prejudices ... and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

I always found it interesting that the first presidential candidate I ever heard come out in favor of the freedom to marry was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who said that asking him "if he was in favor of gay marriage was like asking if he was in favor of white marriage or black marriage."

As a pollster, I'm well aware of the political danger of getting out in front of public opinion. But sometimes leadership demands as much. The truth is, we should never put people's civil rights up for a vote. Our constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

At the end of the day, marriage equality will come: partly through the courts; partly through the legislative process. More and more community and political leaders will offer their support, and someday soon gays and lesbians all across America will be able to choose get married, or not.

Which side of this history do you want to be on?

Bernard Whitman is president and CEO of Whitman Insight Strategies, a public opinion polling firm. A frequent commentator on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, his clients include a wide range of companies, political leaders, and issue advocacy organizations. He lives with his husband and son in New York City. Weekly columnist Dan Gerstein will be back next week.