Obergefell gay marriage
Once opponents in the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage, now they're friends
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The case behind the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago is famous as Obergefell v. Hodges, but the two Ohio men whose names became that title weren't so at odds as it would seem, and are now friends.
One year after the Supreme Court's June 26, , decision, guide plaintiff Jim Obergefell was at an event for an LGBTQ advocacy company when its former director asked if he wanted to meet Rick Hodges, who'd been the title defendant in his capacity as state health director in Ohio, one of the states challenged for not allowing same-sex couples to marry.
"I don't comprehend, you tell me. Execute I want to encounter Rick Hodges?" Obergefell recalls responding.
The two met for coffee in a hotel and hit it off.
Hodges said he wanted to meet Obergefell because he's an "icon." He said he remembers telling Obergefell something along the lines of: "I don't realize if congratulations are in order because this began with you losing your husband, but I'm gla
A decade after the U.S. legalized male lover marriage, Jim Obergefell says the brawl isn't over
Over the past several months, Republican lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced measures aimed at undermining same-sex marriage rights. These measures, many of which were crafted with the help of the anti-marriage equality group MassResistance, try to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
MassResistance told NBC News that while these proposals face backlash and wouldn’t convert policy even if passed, keeping rivalry to same-sex marriage in the common eye is a win for them. The group said it believes marriage laws should be left to states, and they interrogate the constitutional basis of the 5-to-4 Dobbs ruling.
NBC News reached out to the authors of these declare measures, but they either declined an interview or did not respond.
“Marriage is a right, and it shouldn’t hinge on on where you live,” Obergefell said. “Why is lgbtq+ marriage any other than interracial marriage or any other marriage?”
Obergefell’s journey to becoming a head for same-sex marriage rights
Obergefell v. Hodges
Overview
Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, , the Supreme Court of the Combined States held, in decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted that the right to marry is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” The marriage right is also guaranteed by the equal protection clause, by virtue of the close connection between liberty and equality. In this decision Justice Kennedy also declared that “the reason marriage is fundamental…apply with equal force to same-sex couples”, so they may “exercise the fundamental right to marry.” The majority decision wa
Obergefell v. Hodges
Same-sex marriage has been controversial for decades, but tremendous progress was made across the Combined States as states individually began to lift bans to same-sex marriage. Before the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. ___ () was decided, over 70% of states and the District of Columbia already established same-sex marriage, and only 13 states had bans. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose queer partners had since passed away, claimed Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or have their legal marriages performed in another state recognized.
All district courts found in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the cases were consolidated, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states' bans on homosexual marriage and refusal to acknowledge legal same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions were not unconstitutional.
Among several arguments, the respondents asserted that the petitioners were