������Ƶ

“In a historic and long-awaited decision, a deeply split Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ushered in a new era of gay rights, becoming the nation’s first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry,” reads the lead of the Boston Globe’s account of the Nov. 18, 2003, ruling heard ‘round the world. “In the 4-3 decision, the court’s majority ruled that the centuries-old notion of marriage as limited to a man and a woman should be updated to define the institution as the exclusive, ‘voluntary union of two persons as spouses.’”

Globe writer could not have known how apt her description of the new era was or how quickly and widely it would be ushered in. The 11½ years since have seen the ranks of marriage equality states grow at breakneck speed to 37 plus the District of Columbia.

But history books will forever show that the marriage equality revolution actually began here in Hawaii a decade before the Massachusetts ruling: In , state Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson was the first in the country to rule that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated constitutional rights to equality protection.

Though it would take another 20 years for Hawaii to legalize marriage equality, it finally did so in a way that was both bold and rare: Through a special legislative session and vote of the state House and Senate. The right to marry was delivered in most of the other 36 states by court order; in Hawaii, it came to pass through the courageous leadership of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, 50 legislators and thousands of LGBT individuals and community allies around the state.

Now we find ourselves at the venue where many have long sought the national resolution of this issue: The U.S. Supreme Court, where arguments will be heard today on four cases combined into a single challenge that may well establish the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states.

Justices will hear those arguments in a profoundly different political and cultural environment than when the Massachusetts ruling was made. Only about one-third of Americans approved of gay marriage at the time. But increased public visibility of gays and lesbians and the simple opportunity to get used to the idea of marriage equality has changed minds, both young and old.

Polls in recent weeks from and have shown overall support for marriage equality well above 60 percent — remarkable numbers, but perfectly in keeping with a national trend that has seen support grow consistently with each passing year.

Perhaps even more important for justices seeking to ensure that the country is ready for marriage equality are two findings deeper in the ABC News/Washington Post poll: Sixty-two percent feel states should be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and 61 percent say states should not be allowed to prohibit marriage equality. Those speak not just to conceptual approval of gay marriage, but a broad embracing of its legality as a moral imperative, a new cultural standard.

The Supremes unavoidably take such information into account in determining what cases they accept and assessing how far the boundaries of jurisprudence may expand on any given issue. The growing national consensus in favor of marriage equality enables them to focus more completely on the legal specifics of the four cases before them today.

A strong and growing super majority of Americans seems to be saying, as the recent polls affirm, “Why are we still arguing about this? Let’s legalize it and move on.”

That the cases, dealing with marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, are even before the court is a direct result of the 2013 United States v. Windsor decision, in which the justices struck down a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, holding that Congress couldn’t deny federal recognition to gay marriages in states where they are legal. That landmark ruling was seen as a harbinger of future court action and sparked “a nearly unbroken string of 47 rulings in 46 states from 28 different federal courts invalidating or fully or partially enjoining enforcement of the marriage bans in 28 states,” according to the LGBT advocacy organization, .

A momentous volume of change in less than two years, most would agree, but as justices consider it in their rear-view mirrors, perhaps the most notable takeaway is the remarkable lack of controversy it’s created among the broader public. Sure, there have been skirmishes here and there over a refusal to bake a wedding cake, the stray state attempt to flout a federal ruling for marriage equality, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s failed attempt to allow discrimination against LGBT couples, etc.  But a strong and growing super-majority of Americans seems to be saying, as the recent polls affirm, “Why are we still arguing about this? Let’s legalize it and move on.”

A ruling on these cases is expected in June, and whatever form it takes, it is expected to have a sweeping impact on the significant, unfinished business of the LGBT equality movement. Remaining priorities include banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which is still perfectly legal in 30 states; passing protections against LGBT school bullying — still unaddressed in 20 state laws, including Hawaii; and ending discrimination against gay parents, which 12 states still fail to do.

In the wake of a Supreme Court ruling firmly establishing the right of same-sex couples to marry, maintaining discriminatory laws or environments in these states would require a level of legal gymnastics unlikely to withstand any significant test of time.

As the justices don their robes today, we would hope that the strength of the majority opinion that most expect in this matter will be worthy of the moment in America’s ongoing civil rights movement that these cases represent. The court might be appropriately guided by the sentiments of one of the justices concurring with the majority in the Massachusetts case — as applicable to the nation today as it was to that state in 2003.

“We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth,” Justice John M. Greaney wrote. “Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.”