Jim Obergefell, carrying a picture of his deceased husband, was first in line every day waiting for the release of the Supreme Court decisions.
Obergefell was the plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges, which contested Ohio’s refusal to recognize his and John Arthur’s marriage, performed on the tarmac of Baltimore-Washington International Airport. His request was a simple one: to be listed as the spouse on John Arthur’s death certificate.
His case joined three others from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan, all states in the 6th Circuit where the judge had deviated from the precedent by upholding same-sex marriage laws.
The oral arguments for the case, made in April, were at the same time powerful and amusing. Ginsburg spoke about the changing form of marriage, which she said has become more egalitarian as the institution has become less dominated by male partners. Justice Alito mused out loud about whether a decision in favor of same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriages and asked if Plato had written favorably about homosexuality even though Greeks had limited marriage to heterosexual couples.
In a 5-4 landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that all fifty states must license a marriage for same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages performed lawfully out of state.
“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the decision. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Scathing criticism came from the four dissenters, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who had serious concerns that the Court was engaging in judicial activism. “Understand well what this dissent is about,” he wrote. “It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.” Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas also wrote dissents arguing that the Obergefell decision was a clear example of the Court overstepping its bounds.
The decision reflects a growing acceptance of same-sex marriages in America. A recent Gallup poll found that a record high 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, compared to only 27% of Americans twenty years ago. The support also reached record highs across parties, with 37% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents supporting same-sex marriage.
The decision was a cause for great celebration on Friday, reflected by social media. News media shared photographs of same-sex couples marrying in states that previously banned same-sex marriage. Snapchat offered filters so users could announce their joy, including a rainbow “Making History” label and a Human Rights Campaign icon. Facebook also created a website that enabled users to apply a rainbow filter to their profile picture.
Yet Louisiana is refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, with Governor Bobby Jindal stating that he wants to wait until the 5th Circuit Court rules on the same-sex issue in a few days. His staffers nonetheless acknowledge that they know same-sex marriage is coming to the state.
Ultimately, the consensus among the LGBTQ+ community is that this decision marks one of their biggest victories in the fight for equality, but that fight is just beginning. LGBTQ+ individuals still disproportionately struggle with poverty, with 20% of LGBTQ+ people earning annual incomes of less than $12,000 a year, compared to 17% of non-LGBTQ+ people. Moreover, nineteen states still lack any meaningful legal protection for LBGTQ+ people.
We must keep reminding ourselves that the movement is far from over. Today we celebrate, but tomorrow we get back to work.