Why Marriage Equality Matters  

Deciding whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision, a religious exercise for many, and strongly associated with a lifelong partnership of love, mutual responsibility, care, and commitment. Same-sex couples sought and seek to marry for these purposes too, and to form a family recognized by law and society. Our traditions and laws allow individuals, not the government, to make that choice for themselves. 

There have always been people who fell in love and wanted to marry, but who knew full well that the law forbade this. After the Loving v. Virginia case striking down race discrimination in marriage, couples called attention to the sex discrimination in marriage restrictions, because they, too, wanted to participate in this vital personal right. Without marriage as an option, they could not be the family that their parents, friends and extended family could be.  

At GLAD law, we saw so many people building families together even as the law regarded them as legal strangers. Marriage provides profound protection for a couple and their family, starting with legal and societal recognition of their family that eases their way in the world and allows them to plan a life together, including, if they choose, raising children.  

As the Obergefell court stated, without marriage as an option, the “harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.” For example:

  • Long time partners were unable to share in the pension survivor or social security benefits their partner or spouse had paid because they were not married. On death, they had no rights to inheritance as a spouse would, and without a will or forms providing guidance, a partner could not even authorize the transfer of their beloved’s deceased body out of the home after a heart attack.  
  • There were no rights to a share of a deceased partner’s estate without a will, meaning a survivor could lose both their beloved partner and their financial security.   
  • Although couples shared bank and credit card accounts, bought property together, and planned life together as one family, their invisibility as a legal family compelled them:  
    • to pay for separate health insurance policies,  
    • to file separate federal income tax returns and to pay higher rates without the married filing jointly status or the ability to take or pool various deductions.  
    • on the end of their relationship, to burdensome litigation because there was no divorce process to help them sort out their debts, property division, or parental rights and responsibilities of their children.  
  • Most consequentially, without marriage, in many states couples were unable to obtain a court judgment of adoption or joint parentage that would secure both partners legal relationship with their child.  
  • These and many other extra financial burdens or extra processes to secure what was automatic for married couples placed significant strain and hardship on the families of same-sex couples.  

In May 2004, the era of same-sex couples’ legal exclusion from marriage ended. In a decisive and historical turning point, as a result of the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, same-sex couples could marry legally in that State. And people came to Massachusetts to marry! 

In 2007, the Massachusetts Legislature, after 3+ years of constitutional amendment efforts to undo Goodridge, defeated the last of the amendment proposals, making it clear to the nation and the world that marriage of same sex couples was here to stay.  

Following that turning point, courts in Connecticut (2008), California (2008), and Iowa ruled that marriage bans are unconstitutional. Then the first wave of state legislatures began passing marriage laws, including Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine in 2009. By the time the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” in 2013, numerous state legislatures had also passed marriage equality laws, starting with New York in 2011, Maine’s ballot win on marriage in 2012, as well as Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. In 2013, marriage was also restored to California after a Supreme Court ruling about the litigation following passage of Proposition in 2008.  

The 20th anniversary of marriage equality in 2024 provided an opportunity for the RAND Corporation to conduct research and review all peer-reviewed literature on the impact of same-sex couples marrying both for them and for the broader society. The research demonstrated a positive impact for married same-sex couples and their children, including greater economic stability, better physical and mental health, and more access to health insurance for children. And contrary to predictions from opponents leading into the Obergefell case, there were no adverse consequences – no drop in marriage rates or rise in divorce rates for different-sex couples over the last 20 years.  

The bar on same-sex couples marrying marked our families as outsiders, deprived LGBTQ+ people and families of countless protections and responsibilities, and violated our constitutional commitments to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. The 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell opinion ended by emphasizing the ability to join in marriage is part of “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” and affirming that “the Constitution grants LGBTQ people that right.”    

Marriage equality touches and benefits entire communities across the country. One way we can protect equality is through conversations about why marriage matters to us and to others.  

Whether you are part of a married couple, have LGBTQ+ parents, are a sibling, parent, grandparent, family member, friend, co-worker, or neighbor, we’d love to know about your experience. Share your story today.