Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case that legalized same sex marriage nationwide, is backed by supporters of the courts ruling on same-sex marriage on the step of the Texas Capitol during a rally Monday, June 29, 2015, in Austin. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Jim Obergefell reflects on the fate of marriage equality
Jim Obergefell | Special Contributor
Via QSyndicate
In June 26, 2024, our nation marked nine years of marriage equality. As one of more than 30 plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed same-sex couples’ right to marry, this anniversary should have filled me with nothing but joy. I did experience joy, but also foreboding — a fear that Obergefell v. Hodges might not survive to its 10th anniversary.
Over these nine years, hundreds of thousands of couples have married, and thousands of families have formed. Whether they want marriage or not, queer people see a future that includes them. A young woman once told me that, if it weren’t for Obergefell v. Hodges, she would have committed suicide. She found a reason to keep living in that court decision, rather than end her life. And countless others undoubtedly found hope when before they had none.
Marriage equality brought dignity, security and a sense of belonging to people across our nation. Regardless of the outrageous claims made by opponents, no religious leader has been jailed for refusing to officiate, and opposite-sex couples haven’t stopped marrying or having children. Their dire claims of the fall of society have, unsurprisingly, proven to be just as hollow as their claims of loving their neighbors as themselves.
It is foolish to believe the right to marry is safe, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 with their Dobbs decision, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. This was the first time in our nation’s history the court rescinded a right instead of affirming one.
This court has turned its back on its bedrock principle of precedent because of personal attitudes, not law. Justices Thomas and Alito have made it clear that they will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. It isn’t a question of if a case to overturn marriage equality will make it to the Supreme Court, but when.
What is at the heart of opposition to marriage equality and LGBTQ equality in general? What motivates the extreme hatred toward the transgender community? Why is the LGBTQ community targeted with hate and discrimination?
In a word: religion.
Just as with interracial marriage, opponents of marriage equality used religious belief to justify bans on same-sex marriage.
They conflated holy matrimony — a ceremony blessed by a faith leader in a house of worship — with marriage, a civil right requiring a government-issued license but no religious ceremony. They declared that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, a claim refuted by the lack of bans on marriage between those who are unable to conceive or who are past childbearing age.
Some religious believers frequently point to seven Bible passages they say condemn homosexuality to justify anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and hate, although same-sex attraction and pairing occur throughout the animal kingdom. Transgender people are attacked because some believers say their God created only two sexes, ignoring the scientific fact that people are born with both male and female genitalia or differing numbers of sex chromosomes.
Louisiana law now requires all schools to display the Ten Commandments, and Oklahoma law requires all schools to teach the Bible. Both laws are obvious religious indoctrination rooted in a superiority complex, the feeling that only Christian beliefs and traditions are acceptable, moral and just. This is not religious freedom; it is preference given to one religion over all others in the law and a complete mockery of the religious freedom our founders enshrined in the Constitution.
No Christian has been prevented from practicing or teaching their faith in their home or house of worship. No Christian has been arrested or denied their rights because of their beliefs. That is religious freedom, not the perverted version being pushed by a minority.
Every person deserves a place in We the People, but that will happen only when our nation’s elected officials and judiciary accurately reflect who we are as a people. We can achieve that lofty goal only when every voter votes in every election.
Doing otherwise results in what we have now: a Supreme Court unwilling to affirm equal justice under law to all, regardless of religious belief.
We must do better as citizens of this nation. If we don’t, I fear not only marriage equality but our democracy itself will come to an end.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges, is a speaker on LGBTQ equality and civil rights and the co-founder of Equality Vines, a cause-based wine label supporting equality organizations. Jim is the president of the WebQ board of directors and serves on advisory boards for the GLBT Historical Society and the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. He has previously been involved with SAGE and Family Equality. Jim co-authored Love Wins and has contributed to various publications and essays. He is also a producer for the documentary series Just Married. His diverse career includes roles as a high school German teacher, corporate trainer, relationship manager, software education consultant and real estate agent. Born in Sandusky, Ohio, Jim now resides there after living in Cincinnati, Columbus and Washington, D.C.
……………………
Not if but when
Former county clerk who made headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses following Obergefell could give SCOTUS an avenue to overturn that ruling
Associated Press
CINCINNATI — The former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples a decade ago has appealed a ruling ordering her to pay thousands in attorney fees, arguing that instead of fining her, the courts should be overturning the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges marriage equality ruling.
Then-Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis faced legal action after refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. (AP File Photo/Timothy D. Easley)
In a new brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis’ attorneys claim that “Obergefell … was wrong when it was decided, and it is wrong today because it was based entirely on the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process, which lacks any basis in the Constitution.”
That is the same argument on which the U.S. Supreme Court based its 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
“In his argument dismantling Roe, Clarence Thomas used this exact legal argument to go after the pro-LGBTQ cases,” noted Orie Givens, vice president of communications for the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, in a recent fundraising email.
The Sixth Circuit has not yet said if it will hear arguments in the case.
The battle over issuing licenses
Davis, who claimed she objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, has been married four times to three husbands, according to Wikipedia. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006 and 2008.
Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis’s current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried.
Davis was briefly jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was released from jail within days after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form.
Kentucky’s state legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.
Davis’ refusal led to weeks of protests as gay marriage opponents around the country praised her defiance and marriage equality supporters condemned her bigotry. Davis, a Republican, ultimately lost her bid for reelection in 2018.
One couple — David Ermold and David Moore — sued Davis for refusing to issue them a marriage license, and even though a judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was legally moot after the Kentucky governor had the names of county clerks removed from marriage licenses to protect the religious freedoms of those clerks who said their religious beliefs required them to oppose same-sex marriage.
A legal battle ensued that finally resulted in the state being ordered to pay $225,000 to cover legal fees while, in September 2023, Davis was ordered by the court to pay Ermold and Moore $100,000 in damages. Then on Dec. 28, Judge David L. Bunning added $246,026.40 in attorneys’ fees and $14,058.30 in attorneys’ expenses to the total Davis is ordered to pay.
In July, attorneys The Liberty Counsel, the rightwing legal group that has defended Davis since the beginning, filed a brief asking the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to overturn that ruling and insisting that the marriage equality ruling itself should be overturned.
“Kim Davis is like a bad penny. But as we’ve seen, certain Supreme Court justices are very open to hearing her terrible views,” Givens said. “It’s clear these bigots won’t stop until we make them.”
Dallas Voice Managing Editor Tammye Nash contributed to this report.