Two cases came from Ohio, the first eventually involving a male couple, a widower and a funeral homer. In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision in United States v. Windsor, James “Jim” Obergefell (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel) and John Arthur decided to marry in order to gain legal recognition for their relationship. They were married on July 11 in Maryland. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminated against same-sex couples who legally married outside the state. The main defendant was Ohio Governor John Kasich. [19] Since one of the partners, John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio registrar to identify the other partner, James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate, based on their Maryland marriage.
Ohio`s local registrar agreed that discrimination against same-sex couples was unconstitutional,[20] but the attorney general`s office announced plans to defend Ohio`s ban on same-sex marriage. [21] [22] [23] [24] Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, which Scalia J. agreed. In his view, the government is incapable of conferring dignity; On the contrary, dignity is a natural right inherent in every human being, a right that cannot be taken away even by slavery and internment camps. [151] In 1971, just two years after the Stonewall riots, which unofficially marked the beginning of the fight for gay rights and marriage equality, the Minnesota Supreme Court declared the ban on same-sex marriage constitutional, a precedent the Supreme Court had never challenged. As homosexuality gradually became more accepted in American culture, the conservative backlash was strong enough to force President Bill Clinton to sign the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), which prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, shared by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Citing Glucksberg, in which the court stated that due process only protects rights and freedoms that are “deeply rooted in the history and tradition of this nation,” Alito asserted that any “right” to same-sex marriage would not fit that definition; He reprimanded the majority of judges for violating judicial precedent and long-standing tradition. [152] Alito defended states` reasoning and accepted the premise that banning same-sex marriage serves to promote procreation and the optimal environment for raising children. [153] Alito expressed concern that majority opinion could be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who “risk being labeled as fanatics and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” resulting in “bitter and lasting wounds.” [154] Alito expressed concern about the abuse of justice, concluding, “Most Americans will, understandably, applaud or deplore today`s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever they think about this issue, should think about what it means to claim the majority to power. [155] Hundreds of businesses responded positively to the Supreme Court`s decision by temporarily changing their social media logos to include rainbows or other messages in support of legalizing same-sex marriage.
[158] Enthusiastic supporters took to social media, public rallies, and pride parades to celebrate the verdict. [159] [160] Media commentators have pointed to the above-quoted passage from Kennedy`s decision as a key statement that contradicts many of the arguments advanced by opponents of same-sex marriage, and similar language in the 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia which abolished the prohibition on racial marriage, and the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which has confirmed that married couples have a right to privacy. [161] [162] The paragraph was frequently repeated on social media after the verdict was announced. [163] Across the country, the HRC mobilized efforts to bring marriage equality to several states prior to the Supreme Court`s final decision in 2015. We launched one of our largest field operations in New York City history, deployed 30 full-time organizers, and founded our New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign, which eventually led the state to adopt same-sex marriage in 2011. HRC has also invested millions of dollars in state election initiatives in places like Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. The case had filed 148 amici curiae briefs, more than any other American case.
Supreme Court case,[95][96] including a historical amicus curiae brief, written by Susan Baker Manning, partner at Morgan Lewis, on behalf of 379 companies, outlining a business case for legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. [97] [98] [99] When the Supreme Court issued landmark decisions in 2013 and 2015, the HRC was present with hundreds of supporters and thousands of followers online to celebrate marriage equality. Our concerted efforts to affirm that love is love eventually paid off, giving same-sex couples the right to marry in all 50 states. HRC knew from the beginning that the fight for marriage equality was not only about changing politics, but also about changing hearts and minds.