The free-rider problem, which describes the dilemma of those people who benefit from the success of a movement but who do not participate at all in the work for change, is a major issue in the fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage.  A major problem for many lesbian and gay organizations is the broad range of issues that expand beyond the fight for marriage rights.  It is difficult to mobilize a constituency around one specific issue, such as marriage, when others such as working "against discrimination in housing and employment, antigay violence and gay bashing, gay and lesbian battering, working for a national gay and lesbian civil rights law, repealing state sodomy laws, lifting the military's ban on gay men and lesbians, and providing more education and awareness around HIV/AIDS,"i are also of great importance.  For many lesbian and gay activists who see these issues as more important than that of the fight for marriage, the solution seems to be to first work at bringing about an end to discrimination by getting a civil rights bill passed, which will in turn, open the doors to the legalization of same-sex marriages.  Another perspective, which seems to be that of our group working on this project, is that the social recognition of lesbian and gay relationships will happen only if the law changes first.  Basically, the legalization of same-sex marriages would provide equal opportunity under the law for lesbian and gay citizens of the United States.

    Overcoming the free-rider problem is one of the biggest challenges for the lesbian and gay movement because in order to work for change in governmental policies, in most cases activists must be willing to come out of "the closet."  Lesbians and gay men often face open discrimination and even violence from their families, friends, co-workers, and even complete strangers.  This aspect of identity and visibility, though crucial for the ability to work for change, is a difficult obstacle to overcome and makes free-riding an easy and "safe" alternative for a large percentage of the gay and lesbian population.  A way to address this problem and to frame the movement's message with targeted individuals' frames is to inform people of the importance of the issue and get the message out that without greater participation in the movement, no change can occur.  Lesbian and gay people cannot fight the negative stereotypes that pervade so deeply into our culture from behind closed doors.  We deserve the same rights and options that heterosexual members of society enjoy.  Marriage, itself argued by some feminists to be an outdated and unjust institution deeply rooted in patriarchy, is nonetheless an option granted only to heterosexual members of society.  With the institution of marriage comes the "practice of most United States employers and many institutions (such as the IRS) to give significant benefits including health, life, disability and dental insurance, tax relief, bereavement and dependent care leave, tuition, use of recreational facilities, and purchase discounts on everything from memberships at the local Y to airline tickets only to those in conventional heterosexual families."ii These benefits are not available to members of society who, even though they live as partners in long-term, committed relationships, are discriminated against based on sex and sexual orientation. Though free-riders in the movement for the legalization of same-sex marriage may someday enjoy these benefits, their participation in working for change now would greatly speed the legal process along.  An important issue that free-riders must realize is that their involvement in organizations pushing for this change would also increase social acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships.

    As discussed in our class text, these non-participants who would benefit from the movement's success must see that "the social arrangements that are ordinarily perceived as just and immutable must come to seem both unjust and mutable before collective action is likely."iii  Another idea in the same Snow article that heavily applies to this idea is how "changes in the way a particular domain of life is framed, such that a domain previously taken for granted is reframed as problematic and in need of repair, or a domain seen as normative or acceptable is reframed as an injustice that warrants change."iv  An example of an injustice similar to the ban on same-sex marriage in historical terms is the ban on legal marriage between two people of different races.  In the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, that struck down antimiscegenation laws on the grounds that they violated equal protection, the court defended the freedom to marry as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..."v  This finding, based on equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, has also been argued for the legalization of same-sex marriages, which has radical potential to alter religious, social, and legal definitions of what a marriage is supposed to be.
i Stiers, Gretchen A. 1999. From This Day Forward: Commitment, Marriage, and Family in Lesbian and Gay Relationships. New York: St. Martin's Press.
ii Pierce, Christine. 1995. "Gay Marriage" from The Journal of Social Philosophy. V. 26.2.
iii Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, Robert D. Benford. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation" p. 236. from Social Movements. 1997. Roxbury Publishing Company.
iv Ibid. p. 246.
v Sullivan, Andrew. 1997. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con, a Reader. New York: A Vintage Original.