As Valentine’s Day approaches, some will look forward to heart-shaped boxes of chocolate, while others will question the value of a holiday that commercializes love and serves to make the uncoupled feel ‘less than’. For same-sex couples and the broader LGBTQ+ community, the holiday has long presented a heteronormative, cisnormative vision of love which excludes anyone outside a narrow definition of ‘normal’. At SIS, we decided to take the opportunity of this pink-and-red swathed, Cupid-bedecked time of year to look at what’s recently been done, globally and domestically, to expand marriage equality.

The US passed the Respect for Marriage Act at the end of last year, but it wasn’t the only country to pass marriage equality legislation in 2022. Looking ahead, two of the five largest democracies in the world, India and Brazil, are likely to take up the issue of marriage equality this year—India through its Supreme Court and Brazil through legislation. Marriage equality is also a key issue in this year’s general elections in Greece. But the news isn’t all positive, with Indonesia, Russia, and Ghana among those nations to push back against LGBTQ+ rights. We caught up with SIS professor Naomi Moland, chair of SIS’s Intercultural and International Communication graduate program, to answer a few questions about the global landscape for marriage equality and parallels to the current struggle for trans rights.

There are many ways to gauge progress for LGBTQ+ people globally; what makes marriage equality a good basis for comparison?

Marriage is a somewhat comparable statistic between countries, so it is often used to measure global progress. Moreover, marriage equality is a strong signifier of both social acceptance and government recognition. In the 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts—the first US state to do so—the ruling judge stated: “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.”

I included this quote in my own wedding ceremony. People have certainly critiqued LGBTQ+ rights movements for over-focusing on marriage at the neglect of other rights, but marriage has become a central marker globally for LGBTQ+ rights.

LGBTQ+ activists I have interviewed in other countries are sometimes frustrated by Western organizations’ prioritization of marriage equality, saying that in certain contexts, other incremental progress—and basic human rights—should be prioritized. ILGA World—the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association—creates a fascinating map of sexual orientation laws, ranging from the death penalty for same-sex sex to constitutional protections. Importantly, ILGA World’s reports also attempt to track whether and how laws are being enforced. This kind of data allows for less simplistic, but more accurate, comparisons.

In 2022, Cuba, Slovenia, and the United States legalized or affirmed marriage equality in various ways: Cuba through a voter referendum, Slovenia through its Parliament, and the US through Congressional action. Why is there such a variety of approaches among governments?

These different legal approaches reflect different government structures and sociocultural contexts, as well as different historical events. In the US, for example, Congress only found it necessary to pass action on same-sex marriage after Roe v. Wade was overturned, and rumors were circulating about the potential instability of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

As for the choices governments and activists make between congressional legislation and voter referenda, these provide insights into a classic sociological chicken-egg question: which comes first, changes in public opinion or changes in legislation? In countries where public opinion is strongly against homosexuality, legislative change would be extremely unlikely. In a circular fashion, LGBTQ+ activists in such countries have no pro-LGBTQ+ laws to use to bolster their demands—which makes it difficult for them to gain visibility, rights, and public support. In many countries where the judiciary is less independent from other government branches, it seems unlikely that supreme courts would rule favorably on same-sex marriage when public opinion is strongly against it.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, 33 countries have legal same-sex marriage and still others recognize civil unions. You’ve previously written about the importance of Pope Francis voicing his support for civil unions. In your opinion, from a human rights perspective, does legal same-sex marriage within a country indicate an atmosphere that is, overall, safer for LGBTQ people than a country in which only civil unions are recognized? Apart from questions about basic safety, what does marriage equality indicate about a society that civil unions do not?

One reason that LGBTQ+ rights movements have fought for marriage—and not just civil unions—is a desire to be seen as the same as other citizens, with no distinction. When governments create “civil union” categorizations that have identical rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage, activists might say: well, then, if civil unions are no different than marriage from a legal standpoint, then LGBTQ+ people should just have marriage. Marriage can mean something different to religious groups—including, of course, religious LGBTQ+ people—who may see it as an agreement before God, in addition to a civil distinction. Supporting civil unions, such as Pope Francis has, allows leaders to walk a fine line among multiple viewpoints on this.

It is difficult to tell whether LGBTQ+ people are necessarily safer when their countries legalize marriage instead of civil unions. If identical protections and benefits are given to people in marriages and civil unions, it doesn’t seem that there would be a difference. If people who are married are more likely to be seen as full, normal citizens of the nation, they may be seen as more deserving of rights and respect. With all types of legislation, it is important to remember that there is often a gap between laws and realities—particularly in countries where the rule of law is tenuous. In many countries with progressive LGBTQ+ laws, LGBTQ+ individuals still face significant discrimination and violence.

Twenty years ago, the idea of marriage equality in the US seemed far-fetched to many; today, it’s a reality. But now, trans rights—and the safety of trans people—are threatened, both in the US and globally. What do you think needs to happen, either legislatively, judicially, or civically, for trans people to experience the broad acceptance that marriage equality among same-sex people now receives?

Scholars have marveled at how fast public opinion has shifted on LGBTQ+ issues in the United States. According to a Gallup poll, support for same-sex marriage leapt from 27% in 1996 to 67% in 2020. It is important to remember that 67% is not 100%, however, and millions of Americans continue to oppose same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ+ rights. There are also seismic generational shifts happening in how young people identify; another Gallup poll shows that 1.3% of “traditionalists,” born before 1946, identify as LGBT, while 15.9% of Generation Z, born 1997-2002, identify as LGBT.

Along with these shifts comes backlash, which recently seems more targeted at transgender issues. My current research is comparing the implementation of LGBT-inclusive curriculum in the US and the UK—and ensuing backlash. Much current backlash is centered around transgender issues. The recent surge in book bans targets many transgender books, and Republicans are pushing a wave of anti-transgender bills.

It is difficult to know how the struggle for transgender rights will compare to prior struggles for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights. There are many similarities and many important differences. Globally, cultural norms and politics around transgender issues vary. Some cultures have ancient histories of third genders, and in some societies, transgenderism is more accepted than being openly homosexual. Such societies may create broader rights and protections for transgender people before passing same-sex marriage. As always, context matters.