 Evan Wolfson, the founder of the modern gay marriage movement, tells the waiter he would like an iced decaf and "the usual."  Wolfson, one of Time Magazine's Most Influential People in the World, is a man who unflinchingly knows what he wants and stays his course, whether it be in his choice of restaurant or in his choice of battle.  And others always know when they see Evan coming what it is that he wants.
Since his time at Harvard Law School when he wrote a paper on the topic, what Wolfson wants is the right for gay people to marry.  The issue gained national prominence in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.  Wolfson was co-counsel in the historic 1996 Hawaii trial in which he argued that the government does not have a sufficient reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.  In 1999, Wolfson contributed to Baker v. Vermont, the case that led to the creation of civil unions; advised the lead attorneys in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the case that led to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts; and since 2003, when he founded the primary umbrella organization coordinating the efforts to win marriage for gay people, Freedom to Marry, Wolfson has played a role in every marriage equality case in the United States.   He is the movement's founder and leader, and his focus remains square on winning that right.  "For years," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "many of us were saying to him, 'We're not ready. The country's not ready. And, by the way, you're crazy.'"  
When I make a statement to him about his devoting his life to gay marriage, he corrects me:  "I’ve played a part in cases that span the entire spectrum of eliminating gay people’s exclusions and limitations on who gay people are, and I’ve also written on immigration and economic justice, and I have worked on cases involving race discrimination in jury selection and women’s inequality.  I don’t think one has to pick one of these things; they work together."
Indeed, he has.  Wolfson was lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the case arguing against the expulsion of gay scoutmasters.  As an intrepid young assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, Wolfson worked on People v. Liberta to end the exemption that allowed women to be raped by their husbands legally, a right in New York State as early as 1984.  And he helped end the practice of choosing jurors based upon their race.    
Wolfson's entire career has been at the center of the most explosive legal and cultural issues of the last 30 years in the United States, and his influence has been profound.  David Shankbone sat down with him to discuss some of the recent decisions affecting gay marriage, gender in marriage and reactions in the gay community to his fight for their rights.
DS:  You are one of the leaders, arguably the founder, of the modern gay marriage movement—
DS:  The argument is posed that it’s not the same given that marriage has traditionally been a heterosexual institution.
DS:  How has marriage changed recently?
DS:  That was here in New York?
DS:  How did you first become involved in the marriage issue and why was it something you decided to dedicate yourself to?
DS:  But why marriage and not immigration, or adoption?  There are many areas where gay people are excluded from participation.  Why do you personally focus on marriage?
DS:  It does not appear many gay people are galvanized to fight for the marriage right.
DS:  Larry Kramer, a very prominent gay critic of his own community, has taken it to task for its inaction and focusing on sex and having a good time instead of working to change their place in American society.  But you are saying that there is no case of wider apathy amongst gays nor a relative disengagement with their issues?  
DS:  Do you feel disappointment with the level of involvement of the gay community in the marriage issue?
DS:  In July of 2006 there was a proclamation that went out called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.  It was signed by a lot  of well-known people: Cornel West, Armistead Maupin, Gloria Steinem, Terrence McNally.  All friends of the gay movement—
DS:  —That proclamation said too many resources are going toward gay marriage.  In a similar vein, one Wikipedia editor asked, "Should we be fighting for the ultimate 'prize' of same-sex marriage when most states haven't even given the basic gay rights of non-discrimination in employment, non-discrimination in housing and non-discrimination in public places/accommodation?"
DS:  Have any of the signatories rescinded their support of the Beyond Marriage statement?
DS:  What was the motivation behind the letter?  People such as Richard Kim, associate editor of The Nation and one of the organizers, said it supported the notion that too many resources were going toward marriage fights.
DS:  Why not?
DS:  Are too many resources going toward marriage fights?
DS:  Some argue that marriage fights are "too much, too soon" and that it hurts the other fights; that it causes a backlash.
DS:  Was it a win in Iowa, or was it a brief respite?
DS:  Last week, Maryland's Court of Appeals became the latest high court, after New York, Washington and New Jersey, to refuse to grant marriage rights to gay couples.  What’s your reaction to the decision?  There haven’t been many gay marriage gains recently.
DS:  Why is momentum in your movement seemingly stalled?
DS:  The decision was quite strong.
DS:  But the court ruled against even domestic partnerships.
DS:  What role does Freedom to Marry play in these cases?
DS:  Were you an adviser and consultant to the plaintiffs in the Maryland case?
DS:  Does Freedom to Marry play more of a coordinating function?
DS:  How do you handle losses such as the one in Maryland?
DS:  Why are domestic partnerships or civil unions not adequate?
DS:  People like Alan Dershowitz have raised an argument that the word 'marriage' should be reserved for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts we should use a uniform concept of civil unions.
DS:  He’s not arguing against marriage, but against marriage as a civil institution.
DS:  People argue that system is already broke.  Half of marriages end in divorce.  If that system isn’t working for straights, why should we introduce it for gay people?
DS:  Transgender people face specific issues in marriage since what constitutes a man or a woman is often legally defined.  How does the marriage movement address this issue?
DS:  Do you see the issues interrelated, or does winning the freedom to marry itself usurp any problems faced by intersexed or transgender people?

Have an opinion on this story? Share it!
Share this: 






This page is archived, and is no longer publicly editable.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.
Note that some listed sources or external links may no longer be available online due to age.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.

Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson