We can all be proud the Iowa Supreme Court voted unanimously in declaring the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Summarizing the court’s decision, Justice Mark Cody wrote:

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

This important ruling now sets the stage for same-sex couples to receive the societal recognition and more than 1,000 rights and benefits accorded to married partners in legally-sanctioned unions. The people who have worked tirelessly to ensure these rights and benefits are well-deserving of our praise and respect.

With this great victory here, in the heart of the Heartland, we must not rest on our laurels — for the battle has only just begun. Not only must we guard against those individuals and organizations that have — and will continue to — deny same-sex couples of their rights, but we must also work to ensure that the rights and benefits now only accorded to married partners of all sexual identities are accorded to all individuals, regardless of his or her relationship status.

While I fully support marriage equality, I am passionate about rights and benefits equity. We can look at the issue of marriage with its attendant rights, benefits and privileges as comprising a boundary that establishes a polarization of exclusion on one side and inclusion on the other.

In the state of Iowa, different-sex couples, and soon same-sex couples, will comprise the groups positioned on the inclusive side of the border — in a sense, same-sex couples are the new border crossers. On the excluded side of the border, however, there are those who either cannot or will not engage in the socially constructed institution of marriage. Many critical questions remain:

Why shouldn’t non-married people be entitled to the benefits and privileges awarded to married couples? For example, why shouldn’t a single mother receive health and insurance benefits? Simply because she is not married to a partner who receives family benefits from a workplace? For that matter, why are health benefits tied in the first place to the workplace? Is health care not a human right, rather than a work-related benefit? Many, of the more than 1,000 benefits, — for example, rights to child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance and tax breaks — are only entitled to those who are married.

As marginalized people we know what it is like to be placed on the excluded side of the border.

Therefore, we have an informed perspective to ensure that we do not perpetuate the binary frames of inclusion versus exclusion.

We have a responsibility not only to cross the borders, but to tear down the very borders continuing to exclude so many. We must do our work so that all can receive the benefits, the privileges and the rights regardless of whom we love or how we choose to live our lives.

— Warren Blumenfeld is an assistant professor in multicultural and international curriculum studies.