Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Freedom to Marry
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==History== In 1983, at a time when same-sex couples had no country- or state-level recognition anywhere in the world, Evan Wolfson wrote his [[Harvard Law School]] thesis on the constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. He believed that by claiming the vocabulary of marriage, same-sex couples could transform the country's understanding of who gay people are and, as a result, why exclusion and discrimination are wrong. The thesis outlined the arguments that ultimately became a national conversation and a legal and political set of battles that led to a transformation of public understanding and a triumph in the [[Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite news|title=How it Happened|url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/how-it-happened#section-2|access-date=February 5, 2016|publisher=Freedom to Marry}}</ref> Wolfson went on to serve full-time as the marriage director of [[Lambda Legal]] throughout the 1990s. He worked as co-counsel in [[Hawaii]]'s landmark [[Baehr v. Miike|Baehr case]], which launched the ongoing international freedom to marry movement.<ref>{{cite web|title=How it Happened|url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/how-it-happened#section-3|website=FreedomToMarry.org|publisher=Freedom to Marry|access-date=February 5, 2016}}</ref> The Hawaii case foreshadowed the pattern ahead: a legal breakthrough followed by political defeat, because of insufficient progress in changing hearts and minds. When, in 2000, Wolfson was approached by leaders of the [[Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund]], he successfully proposed that the foundation make a $2.5 million challenge grant investment in 2001 β then the largest foundation award in the history of the LGBT movement from a highly respected, non-LGBT foundation β to help Wolfson build a new campaign to win marriage.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Marriage Equality Hall of Fame|url=http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2014/10/7/the-marriage-equality-hall-of-fame-8-funders-who-helped-make.html|access-date=February 6, 2016|publisher=Inside Philanthropy}}</ref> The campaign was officially launched in 2003, the birth of Freedom to Marry. Wolfson knew from studying the history of civil rights movements that marriage for same-sex couples would become the law of the land only when one of the country's two national actors, Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court, brought national resolution to the cause. But a smart, strategic campaign was integral to creating the climate necessary to get to that point and to avoid seeing gains snatched away. As in Hawaii (and even the earliest rounds of the marriage battle in the 1970s<ref>{{cite news|last1=Slevin|first1=Colleen|title=Colorado's gay marriage fight echoes drama in 1975|url=https://news.yahoo.com/colorados-gay-marriage-fight-echoes-drama-1975-070808609.html|access-date=February 16, 2016|publisher=Associated Press / Yahoo! News|date=July 9, 2014}}</ref>), litigation was central β but it wasn't enough. Wolfson called for the creation of a campaign that reflected what he called the "4 multi's": it would be multi-year (not expected to win overnight), multi-state (not watching as victories were picked off one by one), multi-partner (no one organization could do it all), and multi-methodology (it would combine litigation, lobbying, public education, organization, direct action, fund-raising, and even, eventually, electoral). Wolfson knew that marriage advocates didn't have to win every state, but they had to win enough states β and not every American had to be persuaded to support the freedom to marry, but enough Americans needed to be supportive - before elected officials and judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, would do the right thing. Over two decades, the marriage movement built from only 27% support<ref>{{cite web|last1=McCarthy|first1=Justin|title=Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx|website=Gallup.com|date=May 19, 2015|publisher=Gallup|access-date=March 28, 2016}}</ref> among the American people in 1993 to 59% in 2015;<ref>{{cite news|last1=Agiesta|first1=Jennifer|title=Poll: Majorities Back Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage, Obamacare|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage-obamacare-poll/|access-date=March 28, 2016|agency=CNN.com|publisher=CNN|date=June 30, 2015}}</ref> and from 0 states issuing marriage licenses in 2002 to 37 states and the District of Columbia<ref>{{cite news|title=The Changing Landscape of Same-Sex Marriage|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/same-sex-marriage/|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=March 28, 2016}}</ref> in 2015, when the victories created the powerful momentum and energy that enabled the Supreme Court Justices to finish the job and strike down marriage discrimination once and for all.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)