The Story Behind the Lead Gay Marriage Case

[+ quoththeraven]

As Obergefell v. Hodges (aka the consolidated gay marriage cases) wends its way to oral arguments before the Supreme Court later this month, the Washington Post has published a piece on the history behind the lead case -- the one with the lowest docket number, which is the name by which this case will be forever remembered, win or lose.

 

http://tablet.washingtonpost.com/top/how-jim-obergefell-became-the-face-of-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-case/2015/04/07/3740433c-d958-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html?tid=kindle-app

 

Not only is it a moving story of flying to Maryland to marry in the face of mortality due to Obergefell's husband's medical condition (he had ALS) once same-sex marriage was no longer merely symbolic, it's a story of Obergefell asking to be listed as a surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate. That's all.

 

Lawyers pray for cases with favorable facts. You can't get much more favorable facts than the facts in this case. (Ditto the Windsor case, which was also about the right to benefits after a spouse's death.)

 

To those who think gay marriage is a mirage or a distraction, I ask: In a country where the highest court in the land has labeled marriage a fundamental right (which it has), how can gays and lesbians ever be considered equal under the law or full participants in civil society without the right to marry freely? Just because you may be hostile to the institution of marriage because of its heteronormativity is not a reason to be hostile to those of your brothers and sisters who want to take advantage of it.

 

To say otherwise is to say that gay couples like Obergefell and Arthur, who may or may not have been monogamous or whatever but who were together as a couple for a long time, do not meet your standards for gayness. And if they were non-monogamous or in an open relationship (which is not really anyone else's business anyway), doesn't that also suggest that same-sex couples may help opposite-sex couples redefine marriage?