This article considers whether the lesbian and gay rights movement has, over the past twenty years, put the proper emphasis on access to marriage for same-sex couples. In a pair of important essays written in 1989, Stoddard and Ettelbrick, two prominent lawyers working for the premier gay rights organization of the time, took opposing sides on the importance of marriage in the quest for equal rights for sexual-orientation minorities. Stoddard advocated working toward full access to marriage for same-sex couples, while Ettelbrick viewed marriage skeptically, advocating instead for alternatives to marriage and the reformulation of existing legal structures for families. This article looks back on these two essays and argues that these two seemingly oppositional approaches in fact have been complementary — together they are responsible for the dramatic legal, political, and social changes surrounding same-sex relationships in the United States. In surveying the current same-sex relationship recognition landscape, the article finds considerable progress not only in the realm of same-sex marriage, but also in that of alternative forms of recognition, including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and reciprocal beneficiaries. The article concludes that the dichotomy between Stoddard’s and Ettelbrick’s positions is a false one because the movement for LGBT rights has more to gain by embracing both than by choosing one.