same sex marriage thesis

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias

Downloadable content.

• Ofosu, Eugene
• Eric Hehman (Supervisor)
• The current research tested whether the passing of government legislation, signaling the prevailing attitudes of the local majority, was associated with changes in citizens’ attitudes. Specifically, with ~1 million responses over a 11-year window, we test whether state-by-state same-sex marriage legislation was associated with decreases in anti-gay implicit and explicit bias. Results across five operationalizations consistently provide support for this possibility. Both implicit and explicit bias were decreasing prior to same-sex marriage legalization, but decreased at a sharper rate following legalization. Moderating this effect was whether states passed legislation locally. While states passing state-level legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed local legislation demonstrated increased anti-gay bias following federal legalization. Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals’ attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched, and socially and politically volatile
• La recherche présente a testé si l’adoption par le gouvernement de lois reflétant l’avis d’une majorité de citoyens, est associée avec des changements d’attitude de citoyen(ne)s. Grâce à 1 million d’observations sur plus de 11 ans, nous avons examiné si la légalisation du mariage gai pour chaque état américain a été associée avec la diminution des préjugés homophobes implicites et explicites. Cinq modèles statistiques appuient fortement notre hypothèse. Bien que les préjugés implicites et explicites étaient en diminution avant la légalisation du mariage homosexuel, les deux types de préjugés ont diminué plus rapidement après. Cet effet était modéré par le pallier de gouvernement ayant mis en œuvre la légalisation. Spécifiquement, les états ayant adopté la légalisation au niveau de l’état ont vu une diminution des deux types de préjugés après la légalisation, tandis que ceux n’ayant pas légalisé le mariage gai au niveau de l’état ont vu une augmentation des préjugés après la légalisation au niveau fédéral. Notre recherche souligne comment les lois gouvernementales peuvent influencer les attitudes individuelles, même quand ces attitudes sont fortement enracinées et sujettes aux débats sociaux
• McGill University
•  https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/xg94ht93x
• All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
• Department of Psychology
• Master of Science
• Theses & Dissertations

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• I. INTRODUCTION
• II. MARRIAGE VIEWS AMONG LGBTQ PEOPLE
• III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS: POLITICS OF RECOGNITION AND RIGHTS CONSCIOUSNESS
• IV. DATA AND METHODS
• V. FINDINGS
• VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
• Acknowledgement
• < Previous

Same-sex Marriage: Principle Versus Practice

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Kathleen E Hull, Same-sex Marriage: Principle Versus Practice, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family , Volume 33, Issue 1, April 2019, Pages 51–74, https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/eby018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article uses in-depth interview data to examine the meanings of marriage for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the US context. The politics of recognition and rights consciousness provide the theoretical frames for the study. The interview data indicate broad support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage among LGBTQ individuals, but more mixed views of marriage as a social institution and uneven personal aspirations to marry. Respondents fall into three broad categories: marriage-positive, marriage-ambivalent, and marriage-negative. The fact that LGBTQ respondents favour marriage more in principle (as a right) than in practice (as an actual social institution) suggests that marriage holds multiple meanings for them. I discuss these meanings in relation to the politics of recognition and the political effects of rights. I conclude that the tension between marriage in principle versus practice signals both a desire for recognition and a critical perspective on law.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3707
• Print ISSN 1360-9939
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Erasmus School of Economics
• Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication
• Erasmus School of Law
• Erasmus School of Philosophy
• Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences
• Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management
• International Institute of Social Studies
• Rotterdam School of Management
• Tinbergen Institute
• Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies
• RSM Parttime Master Bedrijfskunde
• Erasmus University Library
• Thesis Repository.
• Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences /
• Public Administration /
• Master Thesis
• Search: Search

Hengeveld, Elisabeth

Same-sex marriage

Publication.

the power of politics or the power of discourse?

This thesis conducts a congruence analysis to test the strength of two dominant but competing theories within the public policy literature: the Advocacy Coalition Framework by Sabatier and the Discourse Coalition Framework by Hajer. There is a gap in the existing literature on the ability of the classical public policy theories to explain change in morality policies. The research aim of this thesis is therefore to discover whether it is the power of politics or the power of discourse that best explains variation in the degree of permissiveness across countries. As case studies, the policy processes that have led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage (SSM) in the Netherlands (2001) and Germany (2017) have therefore been examined comprehensively. Two hypotheses – formulated to assess the strength of the ACF and the DCF – have been tested on the Dutch and German case. The analysis of these hypotheses finds that whereas the ACF can explain the policy process in the Netherlands, the DCF can explain the policy process in Germany. The conclusion of this analysis is that neither the ACF nor the DCF accurately and consistently explains morality policy change with regards to SSM. The fact that both theories have been challenged by the opposite cases – even though these have been carefully selected in the theoretical framework and research design – tells us a great deal about the weakness of both of these classical theories to account for morality policies. The existing literature reveals that there is a wide variety of explanations that account for variation in the degree of permissiveness towards morality policies more generally and same-sex marriage specifically, the most dominant of which have been the role of religion, societal value conflicts, party cleavages, the role of the judiciary and international influences. Although the ACF and DCF address the party cleavages and societal value conflicts respectively, they – as well as the other classical public policy theories – fail to address other important factors that may lead to morality policy change. Therefore, the conclusion of this thesis is that morality policy change is significantly different from other fields of regulation, and should therefore be treated as such. Hence, there is a need in public policy research to either alter existing theories to account for a wider range of policy issues, or to create new theories or frameworks that explicitly account for morality policy change.

Add Content

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET
• Banasthali Vidyapith
• Department of Legal Studies (Law)

Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

• < Previous

Home > Honors Theses, 1990-2015 > 1746

HIM 1990-2015

Same-sex marriage: a fundamental right.

Stefen Smith , University of Central Florida

Same-sex marriage is a subject that has been heavily discussed and argued since the concept of marriage came into existence. Marriage is a relationship that most American citizens are entitled to although it is not yet a fundamental right. As of a very recent court decision, Strawser v. Strange, Civil Action No. 14-0424-CG-C1 finalized on February 9, 2015, Alabama has legalized same-sex marriage; furthermore, thirty-seven states now recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. Marriage, whether it is between a heterosexual or a homosexual couple, should be a fundamental right enjoyed by all. This thesis will explain why same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right. The research presented in this thesis will be scrutinized and thoroughly examined showing the obstacles that same-sex couples face when wanting to legally marry. The United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause will be analyzed and discussed to prove that all fifty states should allow same-sex couples to wed. Citizens view what constitutes a marriage differently depending on their upbringing and residence. This thesis will illustrate why same-sex marriage has been such a widely discussed topic, and it will investigate the influence of religion and the church. Historically, the tradition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. By examining how the tradition of marriage is changing and using case law decisions, an argument can be formed that marriage should be a fundamental right for all people.

If this is your Honors thesis, and want to learn how to access it or for more information about readership statistics, contact us at [email protected]

Thesis Completion

Naccarato-Fromang, Gina

Bachelor of Science (B.S.)

College of Health and Public Affairs

Legal Studies

Dissertations, Academic -- Health and Public Affairs; Health and Public Affairs -- Dissertations, Academic

Access Status

Open Access

Length of Campus-only Access

Document type.

Honors in the Major Thesis

Recommended Citation

Smith, Stefen, "Same-Sex Marriage: A Fundamental Right" (2015). HIM 1990-2015 . 1746. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1746

Since October 01, 2015

Included in

Legal Studies Commons

Browse Advisors

• Browse recent Advisors

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Colleges & Departments
• Disciplines
• Expert Gallery
• My STARS Account
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Follow STARS
• About STARS

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• < Previous

Home > College of Arts and Sciences > Anthropology > ANTHRO_THESES > 10

Anthropology Theses

Identity as politics, politics as identity: an anthropological examination of the political discourse on same-sex marriage.

Jeremy Jay Greenup Follow

Date of Award

Degree type, degree name.

Master of Arts (MA)

Anthropology

First Advisor

Emanuela Guano - Chair

Second Advisor

Kathryn A. Kozaitis

Third Advisor

Susan McCombie

Fourth Advisor

Cassandra White

Marriage has come to be center-stage in a semiotic and ideological “culture war.” The issue of same-sex marriage has emerged as a defining political argument shaping the manner by which the contemporary gay rights movement positions itself. In Georgia’s 2004 election, a constitutional amendment was proposed defining marriage as legal unions between only biological men and women. In response, campaigns were organized by both supporters and opponents to same-sex marriage. This thesis examines the politics of spectacle at play through which both sides of this argument positioned themselves. This thesis employs anthropological theory, queer theory and public sphere literature to illuminate the campaign against same-sex marriage as one of not only the denial of citizenship rights, but of identity recognition. The methods of theatricality employed by both sides of this debate are examined alongside the manners by which they represented themselves as legitimate voices in the fight over “marriage.”

https://doi.org/10.57709/1059161

Recommended Citation

Greenup, Jeremy Jay, "Identity as Politics, Politics as Identity: An Anthropological Examination of the Political Discourse on Same-Sex Marriage." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/1059161

Since February 08, 2010

Included in

Anthropology Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Submit ETD (Thesis/Dissertation)
• Department of Anthropology

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

How has same-sex marriage changed America?

More acceptance, but new fears and fights

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

This week marks a notable anniversary: 20 years since America's first legal same-sex marriages were performed in Massachusetts. The ceremonies, featuring seven couples, came after the state's top court ruled that the Massachusetts Constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." "That ruling, and the marriages it allowed, represented progress few queer people expected to witness in our lifetimes," Renée Graham said in The Boston Globe .

"Two decades later, what was once the white-hot center of political debate has receded to the background," said The Wall Street Journal . The Massachusetts ruling didn't mark the end of that debate, but it was the beginning of the end. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue with its landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriages nationwide. What was once a bitterly divisive issue is now relatively popular: "Polls show nearly three-quarters of Americans, including 49% of Republicans and a majority of regular churchgoers, support it." Does that mean the debate is completely over?

What did the commentators say?

"The past few years have taught us that hard-earned rights should not be taken for granted," Robert B. Hanson, the judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage in Iowa in 2007, said in The Des Moines Register . Same-sex families have blossomed even in red states — Iowa is home to 4,000 such couples, and more than a quarter of those are raising children. But the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 signaled that other rights could be on the chopping block. "There are real threats to this progress, and it's critical that we not lose sight of them."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

This means same-sex marriage — far from firmly entrenched in the law — might be on the ballot in 2024. Right now a "majority of justices aren't ready to rule that same-sex marriage is no longer protected," Philip Elliott said at Time magazine. That could change depending on the results of the presidential election. The next president could replace enough Supreme Court justices to "shift that dynamic fairly quickly." Strategists in both parties are trying to avoid discussing LGBTQ+ rights, preferring to focus instead on abortion. That should change. The issue deserves "better attention by the candidates and voters."

Onetime opponents of same-sex marriage have largely moved on to campaigns against transgender rights, The New York Times said in 2023. After the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, "social conservatives were set adrift." The new focus on transgender Americans, particularly young people, has "reinvigorated a network of conservative groups, increased fund-raising and set the agenda in school boards and state legislatures."

Perhaps that's because conservative fears about the legalization of same-sex marriage "simply have not come to pass," UCLA's Benjamin R. Karney told Newsweek . There were concerns that allowing gay marriage would result in "fewer couples marrying, more couples divorcing and an overall retreat from family formation," he said. Instead, marriage rates went up among both different-sex and same-sex couples, while adoption rates increased. "The only changes we detect," said Melanie A. Zaber, an economist who studied the issue with Karney, "are suggestive of a renewed salience of marriage among the broader public."

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association. 

The Week's daily codeword puzzle

By The Week Staff Published 19 May 24

Cartoons Saturday's cartoons - a rocky road, innovative legislation, and more

By The Week US Published 18 May 24

Cartoons Artists take on the candidates' age gap, sleepyheads, and more

Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 17 May 24

Today's Big Question Catalyst for the disorder is new legislation that would expand the eligible electorate, but Baku is accused of fomenting turmoil

By Rebecca Messina, The Week UK Published 17 May 24

Today's Big Question International criticism and a lack of progress in freeing hostages is piling pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu

By Richard Windsor, The Week UK Published 16 May 24

Today's Big Question As college students across the country speak out against the Gaza war, some employers are already threatening post-graduation consequences

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 15 May 24

Today's Big Question The kids are not alright

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 9 May 24

Today's Big Question FAFSA's botched rollout creates chaos for college-bound seniors

By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published 8 May 24

Today's Big Question 'There is a risk our Europe could die'

By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published 7 May 24

Today's Big Question The Secret Service has begun grappling with how to protect a former president behind bars

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 6 May 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

20 years ago Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage

Just after midnight on May 17, 2004, same-sex couples began filling out marriage license applications at Cambridge City Hall. One married couple looks back on their wedding and how it's gone since.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

What marriage means to these same-sex couples

Copy the code below to embed the wbur audio player on your site.

<iframe width="100%" height="124" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://player.wbur.org/news/2024/05/17/massachusetts-same-sex-lgbtq-gay-marriage"></iframe>

Twenty years ago, same-sex couples walked into city and town halls, synagogues and banquet halls across Massachusetts.

They were there to get married.

On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts towns and cities began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the state made history as the first in the country to allow same-sex marriages.

Couples cascaded into clerks offices to make their mark on history. Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish were first in Cambridge to legally marry ; they obtained their marriage license minutes after midnight at city hall and were wed later that morning. At Boston City Hall, the couple who became the face of the fight for marriage equality, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, married .

Since that day, well over 30,000 LGBTQ couples have gotten married, according to available state data.

WBUR spoke with four couples who have exercised their right to marry at different points over the last two decades. They shared the experiences that led them to each other and what marriage has meant in their lives.

Gaby Leal and Chelsea Wood

Sept. 12, 2020.

“She was my one and only right swipe Tinder date,” Gaby Leal, 35, said.

“She was not my first right swipe, but certainly the best right swipe,” Chelsea Wood, 37, replied. “The last, for sure.”

It was 2016 and Wood was working in San Francisco. Leal, who is from Mexico, was in town for a two-week training.

Leal knew right away Wood was it for her. They dated long distance, flying to see each other once a month, and soon after decided to move to Massachusetts to be together full time.

When the pandemic struck in 2020, marriage became a bigger topic of conversation.

“I started going back to work,” Leal said. She’s a field service engineer who works in hospitals. “It was scary; if anything were to happen, I want you to have rights. I will want people to know that you have a say on my life.”

So in May 2020, Leal bought a ring online and popped the question.

When they told friends and family, the first question was: How are you going to do it?

COVID was not getting better, so they had the ceremony in September in their backyard and invited guests on Zoom.

The only mishap was that Leal forgot to unlock the phone rotation, “so the whole wedding was sideways.”

At the end, everyone offered a toast.

“It took like an hour and a half to get through all the toasts,” Wood said. “And two bottles of champagne,” Leal said.

They eventually celebrated in person, between COVID variants, with a reception at La Brasa in Somerville.

“I wanted to have a Mexican wedding in Somerville, and we accomplished it,” Leal said proudly.

They both donned white dresses, did their hair and makeup, wore heels — and switched to personalized Converses later in the evening (that’s more Leal’s pace). There was a dance floor, a Mexican DJ, and cheese flown in from Oaxaca. Everyone gave speeches and danced.

The couple’s first dance was to a mash up of two songs: Taylor Swift’s “Lover” for Leal, and St. Motel’s “My Type” for Wood.

“So all the traditional stuff," Wood described. "You know, for a very untraditional couple."

The couple has been together for eight years, and married for four. They’ve settled down in Danvers.

Leal said that when she lived in Mexico, it wasn't legal to get married. (The country legalized same-sex marriage in all states by 2022.)

“I never thought that I was going to be able to get married,” she said, “but I always wanted it because I saw my parents and I saw my brother and it just felt bad not being able to have that just because I loved women.”

The couple feels safe living in Massachusetts — with its progressive record on social issues — but Wood said she’s worried the conservative Supreme Court might put the right to marry on the table again.

“I don't feel comfortable about it,” she said. “If Trump gets reelected, I think it's almost for sure going to happen.”

The couple is particularly worried about Leal’s ability to stay in the U.S. She's a resident, but has not been naturalized as a citizen.

“My green card is through marriage and if my marriage is not valid and then what happens to my green card?” Leal said. “So that is a scary part.”

Leal plans to file her paperwork as soon as she’s able.

“A lot of people feel like marriage is just a piece of paper,” Leal said, “but for me, that piece of paper, like makes us together, gives you rights.”

To Leal, marriage also means “I vow to love you until my heart stops beating. It's just a beautiful vow that we do. And I love that.”

Corey Yarbrough and Quincy J. Roberts Sr.

Oct. 1, 2016.

For their first date, Corey Yarbrough asked Quincy J. Roberts to the Cheesecake Factory, in Boston’s Prudential Center.

“It was our first, second, third and fourth date,” Yarbrough, 38, remembered, laughing.

That first date was 16 years ago, and the couple is now happily married and settled in Dorchester with their son. “So maybe Cheesecake Factory should be everyone’s first date,” Roberts, 42, said.

Roberts is the visionary one — he’s opinionated and creative. Yarbrough is the strategist, who helps take out of the box ideas and make them happen — he’s compassionate and humble.

Roberts used to wish he was more like Yarbrough, “but as I grow older, I'm like, I don't wish I had anything but what I have. But I admire [him more].”

Yarbrough is the executive director of 826 Boston, and Roberts is the director of special events for the state’s travel and tourism department.

When they started dating, they connected over growing up in the South and learning to find their way in Boston.

“A lot of those early conversations were about trying to survive in Boston as a Black gay man, and that being very, very difficult for us in terms of being able to find community, in terms of being able to find support systems,” Yarbrough said.

Those discussions led the couple to create the Hispanic Black Gay Coalition, an LGBT organization, in 2009 utilizing Yarbrough’s background in community organizing and Roberts’ political fundraising. The organization became the root of their long relationship.

“At that time in my life, marriage didn't seem possible. … I've always struggled with my sexuality, just being from the South, the way I was raised. So, I was one of those people, once I came out, I thought I was going to be one of those uncles that, you know, had the special friend — when we visit on Thanksgiving, that's the roommate or something,” Roberts said.

Yarbrough said he did try to create a future for himself as a married man. Looking back, he feels that part of the reason he moved to Boston was to get space from his family and other things that would discourage him from being his true self.

Part of Yarbrough’s dream was getting married in his church. The couple are members of Union United Methodist Church — one of the oldest historically Black churches in Boston. But when the couple was ready to make their vows in 2016, the church had never held a same-sex wedding ceremony before.

The church trustees had to vote if the couple could get married there because it was against the Methodist faith. Everyone except one person voted in favor of the change.

“I always thought that was funny that these individuals get to dictate whether Corey and I could get married in a building that we work in,” Roberts said. “Like, we really worked there. His office was there. I'm doing youth services there.”

Even as their church in Boston came to allow them to be married in a religious ceremony, they didn’t have a lot of family support. Yarbrough said his mother was his only family member to attend.

“That's bittersweet to reflect on, but I think it is a testament to the love community that we had created here in Boston and that support that we were looking for was still there for us on that big day.”

Roberts’ mom was not supportive at first, but did accept the couple a few years before the end of her life.

“I think that was the half of me that wanted to get married in a church just to show her that I'm still a part of the church, I'm doing amazing things, I'm just your gay son.”

Roberts said they wanted to go through that so other people wouldn’t have to.

They became the first, but not the last, LGBTQ couple to be married at Union.

“I'm not humble about being the first," Roberts said. "It was a vision, like, we're going to be the first to be married in this church, and then we're going to open up the door for everybody else.”

The two wore matching suits — silver, purple and white. But Roberts wore a tie and Yarbrough wore a bow tie, “which is kind of opposite of who we are, because I'm usually the bow tie,” Roberts said, “and he's the tie guy.”

They walked down the aisle to different songs — Roberts to Whitney Houston’s “I Have Nothing,” and Yarbrough to Craig David’s “You Don’t Miss Your Water (‘Til the Well Runs Dry).”

Yarbrough said he was so emotional that he barely got through his vows. “It was just a joyous occasion with the people who wanted to be there, loving on us.”

“Marriage should represent different things to different couples,” Yarbrough said. “I think it's about our bond, our union, our goals and where we want to be five years from now, 10 years from now, and the legacy we want to leave on this earth together and what we support each other to do separately.”

And for Roberts, he said it also shows other gay Black men that there’s hope.

“Young Black boys, whether they're from the South or from Dorchester, Roxbury, they could see someone like Corey and [me]. I say ‘my husband’ a lot and young folks are like, 'You're married to a man?' So it's a conversation starter. It's hope.”

Sandy Bailey and Liz Nania

July 12, 2014.

Sandy Bailey, 69, and Liz Nania, 65, met in the basement of the Roslindale house they currently share.

Nania lived there, and had long hosted dance classes in her basement studio.

"I signed up for a dance class and I didn't know that it was going to be in someone's house," Bailey remembered. "A studio in someone's house — an actual dance studio in someone's house," Nania said, correcting her.

This was in 2012; Bailey had lost her first wife to cancer a few years prior. Her friends had been pushing her to go out and do something, and she had always wanted to take a dance class, so there she was.

"I just was taken with her right away," Bailey said. "She called my name, you know, calling a roll call, and when I said 'here' ... wow."

They later learned that they both wrote in their diaries that night about each other.

"I was like, well, there's still smart, handsome butch lesbians out there to be found once I saw her," Nania said. "So it's like, OK, there's hope for me."

"In truth, I took one look at Liz and knew she was for me," Bailey said. "Luckily there were six nights of classes, so I got to dance with Liz multiple times. I wound up staying there a little bit late one night, and asked her out."

Nania said she was drawn to how social, smart, funny and thoughtful Bailey is. And Bailey was blown away by the fun and supportive queer dance scene Nania fostered.

"I knew on our first date that I would marry Sandy," Nania said, which was out of character for her, having never wanted to be married. "But it's like wow, this is the one."

They got engaged three months later, but kept it secret for a while, "cause we knew our friends would freak," Nania said.

They didn't know it at the time, but both of them had been at rallies advocating for the right to marry in the early 2000s at the State House. They weren't part of the "movers or shakers," Bailey said, but "we were both called to be there to push it over the finish line."

Nania had been dating someone around 2004, but it wasn't serious.

"I didn't want to marry her or anyone," she said. "I was really not into being married at all, but I felt like this is a right we deserve."

Bailey also didn't want to be married at that time, but it still felt monumental to her.

"When it passed, I suddenly realized how much it meant — to be considered a full human, that's how it felt," Bailey said. "It felt like the stigma and the eyes that everybody looked at me through had been different ... like you're just so different in that basic human way of wanting to connect with someone, wanting to make them your person, wanting to make a home and a family, all that stuff that is so core to being alive."

"When it passed, I suddenly realized how much it meant — to be considered a full human, that's how it felt." Sandy Bailey

"It was so electric when it happened. I remember my friend calling me and telling me," Nania said. "I just walked out the door that day, feeling like no longer a second class citizen. ... I just felt 10 feet tall. Like, I'm a real person."

About a decade later, they found each other, and wanted to exercise their right to marry.

When it came time to pick a song to have their first dance to, Nania made a playlist of 20 songs. The couple would dance to them in their home studio every night.

"We danced through them all and just kept crossing them off the list until we were down to two," Nania said. "We picked the one that was the most fun to dance to. It was a very smooth casual dance, no choreography."

It was "Love is Here to Stay," recorded by Ella Fitzgerald.

On the second anniversary of their first date, they got married in a big ceremony at a marina in Hull.

At the ceremony, they read the quote by Justice Margaret Marshall from the state's high court decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage:

Marriage ... bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. ... Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

"We wanted to make it a celebration of joy, and protection for us as a couple, and we sure did," Nania said.

"We were just beaming, like our faces are going to come off," Bailey said.

They had an all-woman swing band, called The Mood Swings, and a DJ. A hundred friends joined. Nania's mom came to the wedding, but otherwise the couple didn't invite family.

"I had not been welcome in my parents home for being a lesbian since my 20s," Nania said.

"Coming out of a lot of gay-related trauma — both of us ... just the magnitude of having a hundred people — a hundred friends, a few family members, a whole orchestra and all the people who worked at the place — stand up and just cheering and grinning their faces off for us," Bailey said.

"I can't imagine what could have healed us as quickly and beautifully as that."

Russ López and Andrew Sherman

May 21, 2004.

It was 1984. Graduate student Andrew Sherman introduced himself to his classmate Russ López at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“We had one date and it was terrible. They carded me, and wouldn’t serve me alcohol,” López, who is now 66, remembered. “It was just this madness so we decided to never have another date.”

“We'd just hang out together,” said Sherman, 61.

They didn’t really plan on being together — “at least for the first week or two,” said López. Soon enough, though, López and Sherman never wanted to spend time apart.

The two started a life together and settled down in the Boston area. In those days, the couple said they felt Massachusetts was more progressive in how it accepted gay couples than other areas of the country.

The first time they bought a car together, López said, the employee at the dealership filling out the paperwork realized the document only had space for one name, and a spouse.

“He didn't know how to handle it. Then he goes, ‘I hate these forms.’ And he scratches it out,” López said.

The couple was together for almost 20 years by the time the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state’s constitution.

All of a sudden, they could get married in six short months.

“We had been together almost 20 years and neither one of us expected the level of emotion that we had by actually getting married and making vows and having a clergy person bless the union." Andrew Sherman

López was out of town for work when he received a text from Sherman that day in 2003: “SJC says yes to marriage, want to do it?”

“Fortunately, he said yes in the text,” Sherman said. But it took a minute — this was before cellphones had full keyboards, and you had to use the number pad to select letters.

The couple never wanted a civil union or commitment ceremony, which were common among other LGBTQ couples at the time but didn’t carry any legal weight.

“But once you could get married, we did go the first day. We were beyond excited,” Sherman said.

López and Sherman said they hadn’t grown up thinking about getting married — they didn’t think it was going to be a possibility in their lives. And that also meant once it became possible, there was a lot to think about, for both the couple and the institution where they wanted to get married.

“The rabbi at Temple Israel said, 'If you're going to do it, you have to have a meeting with me. We have to discuss what marriage means. We have to plan the ceremony,' ” Sherman said. “And we hadn't thought of any of those things.”

“The groom typically breaks a glass at the end of the ceremony, but what do you do with two grooms?” Sherman added. “So that was a whole discussion.”

The couple opted to each break their own glass at the same time.

“We rehearsed," he said. “It was perfect.”

Sherman said the day felt historic — despite how quickly they threw it together.

They wore suits, got boutonnieres, and Sherman’s father, who owned a jewelry store, brought a little box full of rings for them to pick from.

“It was really the most joyful day of our lives,” Sherman said.

They shared short vows: “All we said was to love, honor, and be best friends,” López said.

“We had been together almost 20 years and neither one of us expected the level of emotion that we had by actually getting married and making vows and having a clergy person bless the union,” Sherman said.

They were among many couples who had been together for a long time who got married in those first few days that it was legal.

“We all have the same anniversary. … It's really kind of exciting,” Sherman said.

“You don't forget your friends' anniversaries when you all got married within a few days of each other,” López added.

It would be another 11 years until their marriage was recognized federally. They were able to file taxes jointly in the state, but had to file separate returns for the federal government. López was able to be on Sherman’s health insurance, but they had to pay taxes on the value.

But one change stood out overall.

“When we did get married, what we should have expected, but didn't, and then observed was that people understood what that meant,” Sherman said. “People understood if you were married, that had thousands of years of history behind it and what that meant about your relationship and your relationship to your extended families and to the broader world — it just made a huge difference.”

“The act of getting married is a public act,” Sherman continued. “When you get married, there's no hiding. I think most people today don't think about hiding the way 40 years ago we thought about hiding or just not being too public.”

The couple now lives in Boston’s South End. Sherman has worked at a consulting firm for nearly 40 years, and López is a writer. They spend a lot of their time reading, walking around and talking. They like to take trips to other cities and walk there, too.

They say they don’t fight much — unless they’re hungry, then they’ve been known to get a little cranky. They pride themselves on their ability to share.

“We always order separate things when we go out to dinner and then have halves,” Sherman said.

And this year, for their 40th anniversary as a couple and 20th anniversary married, they’ve planned a full year of celebrations.

Their advice for finding a spouse?

“Marry somebody better than you deserve,” López said.

“We each married somebody better than we deserved,” Sherman replied.

Thanks to The History Project for their contributions to reporting this story. 

This segment aired on May 17, 2024.

• See photos from the day same-sex weddings began in Mass.
• Former Mass. chief justice on life, liberty and gay marriage
• The first legally married same-sex couple 'wanted to lead by example'
• How making history unmade a family

Amy Gorel Senior Editor Amy Gorel is a senior editor of digital news at WBUR.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Supported by

Justice Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion

In a commencement ceremony at a Catholic university, the justice said that fundamental principles were in peril at universities and American society.

• Share full article

By Adam Liptak

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned on Saturday that freedom of speech was under threat at universities and that freedom of religion was in peril in society at large.

“Troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” he said.

He made his remarks at a commencement ceremony at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, a Catholic institution.

“Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find deepest acceptance,” he said.

A university, he said, should be “a place for reasoned debate.” But he added that “today, very few colleges live up to that ideal.”

The same is true, he said, for tolerance of religious views in society generally.

“Freedom of religion is also imperiled,” he said. “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

In other settings , Justice Alito has given a specific example, complaining that people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are sometimes treated as bigots.

As the Supreme Court prepares to issue major decisions in the coming weeks, including ones on a criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump, abortion, gun rights and social media, members of its conservative majority have fanned out across the nation to offer varied takes on their work.

At a judicial conference on Friday in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke bitterly about being subjected to what he called “the nastiness and the lies.” The justice has been criticized for receiving lavish gifts and for failing to recuse himself from cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol despite his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

That same day, at a judicial conference in Texas, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh struck a sunnier tone , speaking of his dedication to neutral principles and the court’s efforts to find consensus.

Those appearances were wide-ranging public conversations, while Justice Alito’s speech was brief and general. But it was laced with the justice’s characteristic pessimism.

“It’s rough out there,” he said. “And, in fact, I think it is rougher out there right now than it has been for quite some time.”

He received an extended standing ovation when a speaker introducing him noted that he had written the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion it had established.

In his speech, Justice Alito said that respect for precedent, in law and life, was important.

“If you read almost any opinion issued by a court in this country, you will see that the text is full of citations to past court decisions,” he said. “Those decisions, which we call precedents, are given great respect. They are not written in stone. Sometimes they must be changed, but they are not to be lightly discarded.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak