One hundred years from now, legalizing gay marriage might seem like an ancient idea that was part of the evolution of civil rights – parallel to the way we view the fight for women’s suffrage today. While we’re not there yet, the road to making gay marriage legal is slowly being paved by decisions like the one made last month by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The court ruled that while the state’s constitution can give all the rights of marriage to gay couples, it cannot confer the title of “”marriage”” – and that the decision to assign this title must transfer to the state Legislature. The process of legalizing the use of the term “”marriage”” for gay unions should be in the legislature’s hands, as the Supreme Court determined, because it is the only way by which the decision can acquire not only legalization, but also social acceptance.

The court gave the Legislature six months to come up with statutes for gay partnerships that would be equal to that of marriage. The Legislature’s toughest struggle, however, is in determining whether the partnerships should be called “”marriages”” or “”civil unions.”” While a civil union provides almost the same rights as marriage, it is a term used to avoid the religious implications that many see in the word “”marriage.””

But semantics aside, the idea of putting this decision in the hands of legislatures is very significant. Transferring the power to make this major decision to legislatures will ensure that it is in the hands of the people, and as a result, any vote in favor of civil unions becomes much more legitimate. And for the issue of same-sex marriages in particular, any attempt to pass measures without the consent of at least a majority of the population will fall flat.

Consider the alternative: In 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom handed out marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in defiance of California law, which permits only civil unions. The California Supreme Court later overturned the nearly 4,000 marriages performed at the San Francisco City Hall, deciding that the mayor exceeded his authority. Though Newsom’s grand gesture captured the spirit of much of the city of San Francisco – and perhaps the near future of California – his one-man crusade was eventually reversed, and created a serious conservative backlash.

Shortly after Newsom’s proclamation, President George W. Bush called for the creation of a Constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and major parts of the conservative base mobilized in response.

“”The more they shoot their mouths off, doing things that offend ordinary people, the better for Bush,”” Bay Area GOP activist Loren Thornton told the San Francisco Chronicle. He argued that Newsom’s decision would “”force politicians to take a stand, and if they stand with gay marriage, they’re dead.”

On the other hand, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a 2005 bill that would have legalized gay marriage, stating that a public mandate was needed. He reasoned that letting voters decide on the law would be the most productive, regardless of his own personal beliefs.

Legalizing the rights of gay couples may seem simple, but full social acceptance of these rights cannot be legislated.

On Nov. 7, eight more states will vote on constitutional bans of same-sex marriages, and seven other states are considering similar measures.

Only the vote of the people can completely validate a law concerning gay marriage, because it’s the people who would be responsible for accepting the idea. Though gay marriage may be gaining acceptance in some regions, it still faces a hard road to acceptance in many others. The best way to earn this acceptance is to let the people make a decision for themselves, rather than have it thrust upon an unwilling population. Moreover, the fact that the legislative process is an extremely slow one gives the people time to adjust.

If created by the people, a law has a much greater chance to win tolerance rather than just be obeyed.