Gay What ?
Rest of site back up shortly!

Where does the LGBT movement go in 2014?

Winter Olympics, John Boehner, Sean Eldridge, Supreme Court, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade

New advancements on LGBT rights are expected in 2014 in the aftermath of a milestone year in 2013. (Photo of the Winter Olympics public domain; Washington Blade photos of John Boehner, Sean Eldridge and activists in front of the Supreme Court by Michael Key)

Although 2013 will be a tough act to follow in terms of achievements for the LGBT community, some advocates say significant new battles and potential victories are on the horizon for 2014.

Additional court rulings on marriage and the upcoming Olympic Games in Sochi will attract attention, but the focus will also be on the lead-up to the mid-term elections in November 2014. Voters are expected to decide the issue of marriage equality at the ballot and make decisions in candidate elections that would shape LGBT rights in the future.

Next month, all eyes will be on the Winter Olympics to see what impact gay athletes coming to compete in Sochi, Russia, might have on the anti-gay laws there, including the now notorious law prohibiting pro-gay propaganda. The Olympics will be held between Feb. 6 and 23.

It remains to be seen whether any of the athletes who’ll compete in the games — or any of the three openly gay members of the U.S. delegation to the Olympics — will speak out against the anti-gay policies, and whether the Russian government will subject them to punishment under the propaganda law for doing so.

In terms of the advancement of marriage equality, no one is predicting movement in the state legislatures as seen in 2013, but action is expected at the ballot and as a result of numerous court cases filed throughout the country.

In Oregon, activists are preparing for a campaign to legalize same-sex marriage at the ballot. They’re already touting 118,176 signatures, which is more than 116,284 needed by July 3 to place the measure before voters. Success at the ballot would mean Oregon would become the first state in the country to overturn a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative.

Another effort is underway in Ohio, where the group Freedom Ohio is touting a new poll showing 56 percent of Ohio residents support marriage equality as part of an effort to place a measure on the ballot in 2014. National LGBT groups, however, aren’t behind this endeavor and reportedly have said 2014 isn’t the year to bring marriage equality to the ballot in Ohio.

But 2014 may also see the return of state constitutional amendments at the ballot banning same-sex marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage in Indiana are seeking a vote in the legislature on such an amendment, which would bring the issue before voters in the 2014 election.

It’s possible that a similar amendment may appear on the 2014 ballot in New Mexico, where anti-gay lawmakers unhappy with the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to legalize same-sex marriage have threatened to take action. However, the legislature needs to approve the amendment before it goes to voters, which is unlikely because Democrats control both the House and Senate.

Amid efforts to place the marriage issue on the ballot, courts may issue rulings in favor of marriage equality in any of the at least 23 states with pending marriage litigation. Such rulings could happen in Michigan, where a trial on the ban same-sex marriage has been set for February, or in Pennsylvania. A federal court in West Virginia may respond to a request for summary judgment filed Tuesday by Lambda Legal on behalf on same-sex couples seeking to wed in the state.

For the first time since the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, federal appeals courts will also take up the issue of marriage equality. The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will review the marriage lawsuit in which U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby recently instituted marriage equality in Utah, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will review Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage in the case known as Sevcik v. Sandoval.

It’s possible that rulings at the appellate level could send the issue of marriage equality back to the Supreme Court as soon as next year.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, said the endeavors to advance marriage equality in 2014 will foster a better climate for the Supreme Court to make a “national resolution” in favor of marriage equality.

“We really don’t know, and nobody knows, which case is going to be that case that gets to the Supreme Court, when it’s going to happen, if it’s going to happen next year, if it’s going to happen in five years,” Solomon said. “Basically, we are full-steam ahead with what we call our ‘Roadmap to Victory’ to win more states, grow public support, get more unexpected allies, and demonstrate that the country is completely ready.”

Solomon said his organization also plans to participate in public education campaigns in Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado and Nevada in anticipation of going to the ballot to win marriage equality in 2016 in addition to a similar campaign in Pennsylvania to foster a climate for a court ruling in favor of marriage equality in the Keystone State.

Advancement of pro-LGBT federal legislation may also take place, although the chances such legislation will reach President Obama’s desk are low — to say the least — because Republicans control the House.

Supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act are pushing for a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber following a bipartisan vote in the Senate in favor of the legislation. Although the legislation has 201 sponsors in a chamber where 218 votes are needed for passage, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeatedly said he opposes the legislation when asked if he’ll bring up the bill for a vote.

Issues for married same-sex couples in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act are also expected to surface. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has pledged to hold a hearing on these outstanding issues.

Among them is the Social Security Administration’s continued hold on benefits claims for married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states. Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act would address these issues by ensuring married same-sex couples would be able to receive federal benefits wherever they move in the country.

The Senate early this year may also take up a version of No Child Left Behind reauthorization — reported out on a party-line basis in June by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee — that contains anti-bullying provisions along the lines of the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said the successes of 2013 are “much to celebrate,” but said they also highlight more work is necessary at the federal level — not just on LGBT-specific issues, but other areas like immigration reform and restoration of the Voting Rights Act.

“Every victory we achieve makes clearer the inequalities that remain — the painful gap between progress and true freedom,” Carey said. “That’s why we need the House to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; fair immigration reform legislation; and to restore the heart of the Voting Rights Act, so unceremoniously gutted by the Supreme Court this past year. We must win on these issues in 2014; we can win on these issues in 2014.”

Meanwhile, campaigns are ramping up for elections in 2014. For the first time ever, at least two openly gay candidates may appear as gubernatorial candidates representing a major party.

In Maryland, lesbian Del. Heather Mizeur is running against two other candidates in a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor. Her primary is June 24.

And in Maine, Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), who came out as gay in 2013, is seeking to oust Republican Gov. Paul LePage. Michaud is the only declared candidate on the Democratic side.

In Congress, six openly LGB members of the U.S. House will be seeking to retain their seats. Those running in moderate districts who may face more challenging re-election bids are Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.).

Sean Eldridge, an entrepreneur known for his work advocating for marriage equality in New York and also known for being married to Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, is seeking to unseat incumbent Republican Chris Gibson to represent New York’s 19th congressional district.

Other gay newcomers are on the Republican side. Former Massachusetts State Sen. Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost a challenge to Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) in 2012, is considering a rematch in 2014.

Former San Diego City Council member Carl DeMaio is seeking to represent the San Diego area in the U.S. House and University of New Hampshire administrator Dan Innis has launched a bid to unseat Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.).

Despite openly gay candidates on the Republican side, LGBT advocates will likely also work for Democratic majorities in Congress — achieving it in the House and preserving it in the Senate — to foster a better climate for passing pro-LGBT legislation.

That may be an uphill battle. A recent survey from CNN/ORC International shows Republicans have increased their edge in the race for control of Congress. Republicans lead Democrats by 49 percent to 44 percent among registered voters asked to pick between unnamed candidates from each party in their district. That’s up from a smaller two-point edge in favor of Republicans last month.

Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said he doesn’t think the House will be in play given the abysmal state of President Obama’s polling numbers, and Republicans have a strong chance of winning the Senate.

“The Senate definitely is up for grabs,” Rothenberg said. “It’s probably close to 50-50 that Republicans will net the six seats that they will need to get to 51 seats. But there is plenty of time for events to occur that could change the current outlook.”

Whatever happens in Congress, LGBT advocates pledge to work at all levels of the government — federal, state and local — to continue to advance rights for the LGBT community.

Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications, said 2014 will present “tremendous opportunities” for the LGBT community in the aftermath of 2013′s victories.

“We will continue to advance all measures of equality in the states, most importantly non-discrimination laws that affect the greatest number of LGBT people,” Sainz said. “And federally, we will continue to grow support for ENDA toward its eventual passage — as well as other bills that are part of our legislative agenda.”


Nevada AG invokes bigamy, incest to defend marriage ban

Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, gay news, Washington Blade

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. (Photo public domain)

Ask the attorney general of Nevada about the definition of marriage, and she’ll tell you it doesn’t include the union of a same-sex couple. But in the same breath, she’ll tell you it also doesn’t include incest or bigamy either.

In a 55-page brief filed on Tuesday, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto urges the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the basis that it reflects the will of the people.

“The interest of the State in defining marriage in this manner is motivated by the state’s desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage,” Masto writes. “In establishing this criterion and others — e.g., age, consanguinity, unmarried status, etc. — the state exercises its prerogative as a State, and that exercise is entitled to respect.”

But in a section titled “Marriage Defined” explaining “what marriage is” and “what marriage is not,” Masto reminds the court that in addition to not being for same-sex couples under Nevada law, marriage is also not for those engaging in bigamy or incest.

Screen Shot 2014-01-23 at 11.02.07 AM

The invocation of bigamy and incest in Nevada’s brief before the Ninth Circuit recalls the first legal brief the Obama administration filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act when it was still defending the law in court. That brief invoked bigamy and pedophilia to assert the constitutionality of the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which riled LGBT advocates.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, took Masto to task for making an implicit comparison between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest while saying she makes no solid argument against allowing gay nuptials in Nevada.

“Marriage is not ‘defined’ by who is denied it, and nothing in the brief explains why loving and committed couples of the same sex should be denied the legal commitment and bundle of obligations and protections that are available to different-sex couples,” Wolfson said. “To invoke bigamy and incest, as the attorney general does — at least she stopped short of bestiality! — doesn’t supply an explanation; it makes clear that the state has nothing to offer to justify the discrimination against same-sex couples in Nevada.

But Wolfson said he concurs with another argument within the attorney general’s brief: domestic partnerships, which are permitted under Nevada law, aren’t equivalent to and don’t provide a substitute for marriage.

The brief was filed in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, a challenge filed by Lambda Legal against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2012.

Jon Davidson, Lambda’s legal director, said “of course, we find any such comparison objectionable” between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest. The organization is slated to file its formal response to the attorney general’s brief next month.

Masto is a Democrat and has served in the role of attorney general for Nevada since 2007. Other Democrats holding the office in other states — most recently Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring — have elected not to defend marriage bans in the state on the basis that they’re unconstitutional.

Notably, Masto argues at length that the Ninth Circuit shouldn’t apply heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption a law is unconstitutional, to the ban on same-sex marriage. That argument is somewhat dated after the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday applied heightened scrutiny in ruling that a juror cannot be excluded from a trial based on sexual orientation — a decision that will have precedent in the marriage case.

“Under an objective application of due process and equal protection analyses, there is no basis for heightened review of the State’s purpose in defining marriage by its traditional meaning,” Masto writes. “There exists neither fundamental right, nor suspect or quasi- suspect class, justifying a different standard of review.”

But the invocation of bigamy and incest isn’t the only part of the brief that is raising concerns among LGBT advocates.

Responding to the various friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the case on behalf of same-sex marriage, Masto takes issue with the way some say marriage is about children and others say it isn’t.

“There is some irony in the inconsistency in certain arguments made by amici,” Masto writes. “A brief by the Family Equality Council, et al., posits that the policy issue is primarily about children, presenting ‘testimonials from the children raised in such families [those with same-sex parents].’ In a separate brief, Family Law Professors (who are ‘scholars of family law’) argue that marriage is not about children.”

Masto concludes these divergent views on the role of children in marriage serve to “reinforce the conclusion that the state’s legislature is the democratic crucible where the issues should be debated and decided.”

Emily Hecht-McGowan, the Family Equality Council’s director of public policy, slammed the attorney general for her interpretation of its brief in favor of marriage equality.

“The Attorney General is missing the primary point of our Voices of Children brief, which is not that marriage is primarily about children but rather that the denial of marriage equality fundamentally harms children being raised by same-sex couples by rendering them and their families second-class citizens,” Hecht-McGowan said. “We trust that the Justices reading our brief and hearing oral arguments will reach the same conclusion that Justice Kennedy reached in his majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor — that laws denying marriage recognition to same-sex couples ‘humiliate children’ and are a violation of equal protection under the law.”


Ky. guv to defend marriage ban without attorney general

Steve Beshear, Kentucky, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Gov. Steve Beshear (D-Ky.) will defend the state’s marriage ban in court without the attorney general (Photo public domain).

The governor of Kentucky announced on Tuesday that he intends to appeal a ruling against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to a higher court on the same day the state’s attorney general declared he would no longer defend the law.

Gov. Steve Beshear announced he’ll hire other counsel to represent the state in the case, known as Bourke vs. Beshear, in addition to appealing the district court decision against the marriage ban the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“General Conway has advised me that he will no longer represent the Commonwealth in Bourke vs. Beshear,” Beshear said. “The State will hire other counsel to represent it in this case, and will appeal Judge Heyburn’s decision to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and ask the court to enter a stay pending appeal.”

As Beshear notes, U.S. District Judge John Heyburn ordered the state to recognize out-of-state same-sex nuptials following his ruling last month against the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, also took on the question of whether the state can prohibit same-sex couples from marrying within its borders.

“Both of these issues, as well as similar issues being litigated in other parts of the country, will be and should be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to bring finality and certainty to this matter,” Beshear said. “The people of this country need to know what the rules will be going forward. Kentucky should be a part of this process.”

Heyburn ordered the state to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, but later issued a 21-day stay in his order, allowing Kentucky to wait to recognize until March 20.

In addition to defending the law, Beshear said he’ll seek a continued stay on that order until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the issue.

“In every other appeal currently in process, a stay has been entered maintaining the status quo until a final decision is reached on appeal,” Beshear said. “The reason is obvious. Without a stay in place, the opportunity for legal chaos is real. Other Kentucky courts may reach different and conflicting decisions.”

Beshear announces he’ll continue defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage after Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway announced earlier on Tuesday he’ll no longer defend the law in court.

“I have evaluated Judge Heyburn’s legal analysis, and today am informing my client and the people of Kentucky that I am not appealing the decision and will not be seeking any further stays,” Conway said.

After reviewing the judge’s order, Conway said Heyburn “got it right” with his decision against the marriage ban.

“From a constitutional perspective, Judge Heyburn got it right, and in light of other recent federal decisions, these laws will not likely survive upon appeal,” Conway said. “We cannot waste the resources of the Office of the Attorney General pursuing a case we are unlikely to win.”

Conway acknowledges that many in Kentucky will disagree with his decision, but he came to the conclusion defense of the law “would be defending discrimination.”

“The United States Constitution is designed to protect everyone’s rights, both the majority and the minority groups,” Conway said. “Judge Heyburn’s decision does not tell a minister or a congregation what they must do, but in government ‘equal justice under law’ is a different matter.”

Conway’s decision follows the announcement from U.S. Attorney Eric Holder that state officials are free to decline to defend bans on same-sex marriage against legal challenges. Other states where attorneys general who have declined their state marriage bans are Oregon, Nevada, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Much earlier, California Attorney General Kamala Harris declined to defend the ban on California’s Proposition 8 and Holder himself declined to the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges.

But the situation in Kentucky is unique in terms of party affiliation because Beshear, a Democrat, is defending the ban, while Conway, also a Democrat, is declining to defend the law. In Nevada, both Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, determined their state’s ban on same-sex marriage was indefensible before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, heaped praised on Conway for his decision to no longer defend Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage in court.

“Today’s decision by Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway echoes that of state attorneys general across America who refuse to defend discrimination,” Solomon said. “Conway stands on the right side of history along with the Republican-appointed Kentucky federal judge who held that there is no legitimate justification for denying equal protection to same-sex couples.”

Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, on the other hand commended Beshear for continuing to defend the state’s marriage ban.

“He is doing what every elected official, on every level of government across the country should do, defend the laws of the land,” Brown said. “It is absurd that Kentucky’s Attorney General Jack Conway is not doing what he swore to do upon taking office – defending the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the judgment of the Kentucky’s citizens who voted overwhelmingly on this issue. We hope that voters hold him to account for abandoning his sworn duty.”


Poll: 59 percent of Americans support marriage equality

Supreme Court, gay marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, gay news, Washington Blade

A Washington Post-ABC News poll has found 59 percent of Americans support marriage equality (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).

A new poll published Wednesday by Washington Post-ABC News has found national support for marriage equality has reached a record-high of 59 percent.

The poll, which was conducted via phone among 1,002 random adults, discovered the highest recorded support ever for same-sex marriage nationwide amid the growth in favorability for gay nuptials across the country.

The results found that 59 percent of responders support same-sex marriage, 34 percent are in opposition and 7 percent have no opinion. Moreover, in the wake of numerous federal court decisions striking down state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, the poll found that 50 percent of responders believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to marriage equality.

According to a Washington Post article that details the results, there’s also majority support for marriage equality in the 33 states where same-sex marriage is illegal. Among residents polled in those states, 53 percent support allowing same-sex marriage, while 40 percent were opposed.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, said the poll demonstrates “bipartisan momentum” is on the side of supporters of same-sex marriage.

“A supermajority of Americans believe in freedom and fairness, and support is growing at an unprecedented speed,” Solomon said. “Overwhelmingly, Americans – no matter where they live, how old they are, or what party they belong to – believe in treating their gay and lesbian family members and friends with dignity and respect by supporting their freedom to marry.”

Additionally, the poll found 81 percent Americans rejects the idea of allowing businesses to discriminate against or refuse services to LGBT people. Numerous states, most recently Arizona, have considered legislation that would enable businesses and individuals to refuse services to LGBT people for religious reasons.

Prior to the publication of the Washington Post-ABC News findings, the poll that demonstrated the highest-recorded support for same-sex marriage was another Washington Post-ABC News poll that came out just prior to the start oral arguments at the Supreme Court on marriage. That poll found 58 percent of Americans support marriage equality.


10 years later, Goodridge decision still seen as milestone

Mary Bonauto, gay news, Washington Blade

Mary Bonauto litigated the case that brought marriage equality to Massachusetts 10 years ago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Ten years have passed since marriage equality came to the first state in the nation following a historic decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, helping to usher in swift change in attitudes and law around gay and lesbian couples.

On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a 4-3 ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, bringing marriage equality to the Bay State.

“The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” the decision states. “We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.”

Despite efforts from then-Gov. Mitt Romney to limit the ruling to civil unions and enact a constitutional amendment to rescind the decision, supporters of the ruling won the day and marriage equality has remained the law of the land in Massachusetts.

Mary Bonauto, who litigated the Goodridge case on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and now serves as civil rights director there, said on the 10th anniversary of the decision the ruling “broke a historic barrier that we have never been able to overcome.”

“And it did so in the shared values of our constitution that we all believe in equality and we don’t have second-class citizens in this nation under the law,” Bonauto said.

The magnitude of the decision was bolstered, Bonauto said, six months later by the same-sex couples who went to the altar to marry.

“Now you had principle and you had reality working together, and all this freedom and equality from the court, and the you saw the joy in couples who finally were able to marry,” Bonauto said. “I think actually having couples marry was profound. It had to happen somewhere, somebody had to be first.”

Evan Wolfson, an early proponent of marriage equality and current president of Freedom to Marry, said having same-sex marriage legal someplace in the country was transformational for the movement.

“The breakthrough we were always working for in those early years was to make it real somewhere because we knew that once people had a chance to see with their own eyes families helped, and no one hurt, the opposition and resistance and fears would begin to subside, and we could build on that win to the rest of the wins still needed,” Wolfson said.

But the victory in Massachusetts, followed by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples, was met by a significant roadblock in the 2004 election when 11 states adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. President George W. Bush won re-election after making support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage a prominent part of his campaign.

Pointing to political analysis debunking the notion that the marriage issue drove voters to the polls to re-elect Bush, Bonauto expressed skepticism that the ruling led to the win for Republicans in the 2004 election.

“The way this all got started, I think, people were putting two-and-two together about moral values, and the 22 percent of voters had stated that their most important consideration was ‘moral values,’ and the 11 amendments,” Bonauto said. “In the exit polling and so on about what this moral values means, for a great many people it meant the Iraq war. So it wasn’t even clear that the moral values voters were Bush voters.”

Bonauto said when she filed the case in 2001, 36 states already had statutory bans on same-sex marriage in response to advancing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s.

“From my perspective, it wasn’t really so much a backlash as a continued lashing,” Bonauto said. “People who had already taken steps to be very explicit about marriage bans, the only place they could go, continue to hone their political credentials, was to be even more draconian, and so that’s what happened by and large.”

Referencing a speech he delivered prior to Election Day of that year, Wolfson said the win in Massachusetts still trumped the losses at the ballot box in 2004 because it was still progress from the status quo.

“Even in 2004, I was on record before the election as saying that any year in which we endured some anti-gay attacks, but won marriage was a winning year because wins trump losses,” Wolfson said. “We would use the power of the win to overcome the temporary barriers erected in our losses, and that’s precisely what we are doing.”

It wasn’t until 2008 when other states would follow suit after courts in Connecticut and California ruled in favor of marriage equality, although the victory in California was (until recently) abrogated several months later by the passage of Proposition 8.

Now 16 states and D.C. are poised to have marriage equality on the books in the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of these unions.

The ruling against DOMA at the Supreme Court was coupled by a decision from justices that restored marriage equality to California. In the months that followed, the New Jersey Supreme Court has instituted marriage equality in the Garden State and state legislatures in Illinois and Hawaii have extended marriage to gay couples. At any time, the New Mexico Supreme Court could hand down a ruling in favor of marriage equality as a result of pending litigation.

M.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute, estimated about 100,000 gay couples have married since the Goodridge decision 10 years ago, but the effect of having marriage equality in Massachusetts and other places goes far beyond numbers.

“It will take a while for researchers to analyze and publish more detailed findings on the effects of the ability to marry and of actual marriage,” Badgett said. “One early study showed that same-sex couples in Massachusetts feel more social inclusion, and one sample of gay men showed lower health care costs and health care utilization. In California we’ve seen that psychological health is better for same-sex couples who marry or had domestic partnerships.”

Wolfson said the growth of marriage equality in the country is noteworthy in many respects, including in terms of percentages.

“As we celebrate the end of this big year, we now have 38 percent of the American people living in a freedom to marry state, up from zero a decade ago,” Wolfson said. “Gay people can share in the freedom to marry in 18 countries, in five continents, up from zero virtually a decade ago. That, by any standard, is enormous progress and real momentum, but we have to finish the job.”

Reflecting back on the decision 10 years ago, Bonauto said she hoped at the time this much change would happen a decade later, but confessed “there were times that I certainly wasn’t sure.”

“I had always hoped that the arc for us would be what it was in some ways for interracial marriage, where courts rebuff and rebuff and rebuff, and then in 1948 the California Supreme Court struck down the interracial marriage ban,” Bonauto said. “More states repealed those after the California ruling, so that 19 years later when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, Virginia was only one of 16 states that had such bans.”

During a news conference held on the same day as the 10th anniversary of the Goodridge decision, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also noted progress made in the past decade in response to a more general question on LGBT rights.

“I think that anybody who looks at LGBT rights and the road travelled in this country just in the past decade would rightly be pleased by the significant progress that’s been made, even as we acknowledge that more work needs to be done, more progress need to be done,” Carney said.

Carney later told the Blade via email he wasn’t making a direct reference to the Goodridge decision, but his comments were meant “just as a broad reference to the progress made over the last decade.”

And hopes continue for a brighter future as advocates anticipate one of the pending federal lawsuits in 20 states across the country will make its way to the Supreme Court, delivering a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide in less than 10 years. Following the Supreme Court rulings in June, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said marriage equality will reach the entire nation within five years.

Bonauto said she hopes the Supreme Court will settle the marriage issue once and for all, but isn’t completely sure which way the justices would rule and emphasized hard work is necessary for a favorable outcome.

“I think we have to work with the same intensity that we have up to this point and hopefully the Supreme Court will settle the issue, and then if for some reason it does not, which I think would be extremely unfortunate, I just think we have to continue doing what we’ve been doing state by state,” she said.

Freedom to Marry has prepared a “Roadmap to Victory” in anticipation of a Supreme Court decision that entails winning more states and building support for same-sex marriage in nationwide polls. Eyes will be on Oregon in 2014 to see whether it will reverse a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage at the ballot.

Wolfson said he “absolutely” believes that supporters of same-sex marriage will be able to finish the job.

“The good news for us is the same winning strategy that brought us to this point of momentum is the strategy that is going to bring it all home,” Wolfson said.


Ill. lesbian couple granted immediate marriage license

A court has granted Vernita Gray (left) and Patricia Ewert an expedited marriage license in Illinois (Photo courtesy Lambda Legal).

A court has granted Vernita Gray (left) and Patricia Ewert an expedited marriage license in Illinois. (Photo courtesy Lambda Legal)

A state court in Illinois has granted a temporary restraining order to a lesbian couple in which one person in the relationship is terminally ill so the two can wed before the effective date of the state’s recently signed marriage equality law.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin, an Obama appointee, signed a proposed temporary restraining order on Monday ordering Cook County Clerk David Orr to grant Vernita Gray and Patricia Ewert a marriage license and register their marriage.

“Defendant is ordered to issue a marriage license to Plaintiffs upon their application and satisfaction of all legal requirements for a marriage in Cook County except for the requirement that they be of different sexes, and Defendant is ordered to register their solemnized marriage as is presently required for all other marriages,” Durkin writes.

Durkin adds in his own handwriting that the proposed order will expire on Dec. 9 unless otherwise extended.

According to the complaint filed on Friday, Gray was diagnosed in 1996 with breast cancer that has since proved terminal as it has metastasized into her bones and brain. She may only have weeks left to live.

Even though the Cook County couple entered into a civil union in 2011, Gray and Ewert wish to marry in Illinois before Gray passes away. Erik Roldon, a spokesperson for Lambda Legal, said now that the couple has the temporary restraining order, they could marry as soon as Wednesday.

In a statement, Gray expressed tremendous joy that she’d finally be able to marry her long-time partner in their home state.

“I have two cancers, bone and brain and I just had chemo today — I am so happy to get this news,” Gray said. “I’m excited to be able to marry and take care of Pat, my partner and my family, should I pass.”

Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed into law last week legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry to Illinois, but that law doesn’t go into effect until June 1.

Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois filed the lawsuit Friday on behalf of the couple to seek immediate action. The advocacy groups — joined by counsel at Kirkland & Ellis and Miller, Shakman & Beem — asked that the court hear the case on an emergency basis.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said the temporary restraining order will bring quick action for the two in their remaining days.

“Vernita is terminally ill and she wishes to marry the woman she loves before she dies — and now she won’t have to wait another day,” Taylor said. “These two women, who have loved and cared for each other in good times and bad, through sickness and through health, will get to know what it means to be married.”

John Knight, LGBT Project Director at the ACLU of Illinois, said the judge issued the order because of the “arbitrary nature of the start date” of the new law.

“Their love deserves the dignity of marriage now and there is simply no justification for forcing them to wait,” Knight said.

According to the complaint, both Gray and Ewert have engaged in various forms of activism even before the time they met.

Gray, 64, spent 20 years working as a victim’s advocate in the Cook County court systems and served as LGBT liaison in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. For her work in combatting hate crimes, Gray was invited to the White House in 2009 to witness President Obama’s signing of the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Ewert, 65, and a breast cancer survivor, is currently community outreach coordinator for Illinois State Rep. Kelly Cassidy and a former executive director for Lives on Target, a non-profit dedicated to providing archery resources.

Natalie Bauer, a spokesperson for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, said her boss filed a brief before the court in support of the order and supports the decision.

“While the State has now taken the historic step of extending marriage to gay and lesbian couples, Ms. Gray’s terminal illness is expected to prevent her from living until June 1 when she and Ms. Ewert could finally obtain the rights and benefits of being married,” Bauer said. “Continuing to ban this committed couple from marrying violates their right to equal protection and serves no legitimate purpose.”

Courts have previously ordered county clerks to grant marriage licenses to gay couples statewide and a federal judge in Ohio has issued temporary restraining orders requiring the recognition of the union of same-sex couples who wed elsewhere.

However, the Illinois order is the first time a court has through a temporary restraining order required a county clerk to provide a marriage license to a same-sex couple. It’s also the first time a court has granted an expedited license following a state legislature’s passage of marriage equality.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said the judge’s order builds on the realization by the Illinois state legislature that there’s no reason to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

“The Illinois Legislature found no good reason to exclude gay couples from marriage; now the court found no good reason to deny this loving committed couple their marriage license even one more day,” Wolfson said. “The judge, like a majority of Americans, understood the human reality that gay couples’ exclusion from marriage is painful and unjust, and that every day of denial is a day of real harm.”


D.C. panel examines DOMA impact on older gay couples

Edith Windsor, Edie Windsor, gay news, marriage equality, same sex marriage, gay marriage, Washington Blade

Advocates say Edith Windsor‘s case clearly demonstrates DOMA’s harmful effect on older gay couples. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Advocates and public policy officials on Monday discussed the impact they say the Defense of Marriage Act continues to have on older same-sex couples during a panel at the National Press Club in D.C.

“We know that LGBT older adults want to marry for the same reasons that all other Americans want to marry,” Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE) Executive Director Michael Adams said during the SAGE and Freedom to Marry-sponsored gathering. “It’s a basic freedom at should not be denied to any committed couple.”

Democratic political strategist Hilary Rosen moderated the panel that featured Sarah Byrne of the Alliance for Retired Americans, National Senior Citizens Law Center Executive Director Paul Nathanson, Web Phillips of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Stacy Sanders of the Medicare Rights Center and New York attorney Thomas Sciacca. National Hispanic Council on Aging CEO Yanira Cruz and Imani Woody, founder of Mary’s House for Older Adults, which has eight units of housing for LGBT Washingtonians over 60, also took part.

Panelists noted same-sex couples are denied Social Security spousal and survivor benefits and Medicaid spousal impoverishment protections because of DOMA.

Phillips stressed the roughly 250,000 children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents also “lose benefits” because they can only claim Social Security benefits from their biological parent — as opposed to either parent if they were a married heterosexual couple. Sciacca noted same-sex couples face additional challenges around state laws that allow biological next of kin to challenge a person’s will and permit only blood relatives to make burial or cremation arrangements upon a person’s death.

Woody said she must pay almost $700 a month in additional health care costs because she is unable to get onto the insurance plan her spouse has through her employer.

“This is a burden for us,” she said. “This is a terrible burden on our lives; one that heterosexual married couples do not share.”

The National Press Club panel took place ahead of this month’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings on cases that challenge both DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage in the state in 2008.

Edith “Edie” Windsor challenged DOMA after she paid $363,000 in federal estate taxes after Thea Spyer, her partner of more than 40 years whom she married in Canada in 2007, passed away in 2009.

“In the midst of my grief I realized that the federal government was treating us as strangers,” Windsor told reporters outside the Supreme Court in March after the justices heard oral arguments in her case. “I paid a humongous estate tax. And it means selling a lot of stuff to do it, and it wasn’t easy.”

Adams noted the Windsor case is “emblematic” of the inequalities older same-sex couples face because of DOMA.

“Edie was treated in a really unconscionable way in terms of discriminatory treatment under our tax code,” he said.

California Congresswoman Linda Sánchez last year introduced a bill – the Social Security Equality Act – that would extend the same survivor and pension benefits heterosexual receive to gay couples and their families. It has yet to be reintroduced during this Congress.

Lawmakers are expected to reintroduce a DOMA repeal measure until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law.

“[We support] the repeal of DOMA, invalidation of DOMA or whatever else needs to be done to eliminate the barriers that would provide equal protection and equal benefits to all America’s families,” Phillips said. “We regard this as a matter of simple fairness.”


LGBT advocates outside Supreme Court remain ‘optimistic’

Proposition 8, Prop 8, DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court, gay rights, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade

Activists held signs and a flag in front of the Supreme Court in hopes of a decision on the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Same-sex marriage supporters who gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said they remain hopeful the justices will strike down California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

“We’re hopeful and optimistic that even out of a conservative court is going to come a strong opinion for equality,” Jonathan Lewis of Brookline, Mass., told the Washington Blade as he stood outside the court with his husband of nearly six years, Jonathan Adlar, and their 10-week-old son.

David Baker, a D.C. resident who is originally from Salt Lake City, held a sign outside the Supreme Court that read “Gay Mormon for marriage equality.”

He told the Blade shortly after he learned the justices would not issue a ruling on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases until at least Tuesday that he feels “civil marriage is a civil right.” Baker, who is also a member of Affirmation, an LGBT Mormon group, added same-sex couples in Utah and other states without marriage rights for gays and lesbians would receive federal benefits if the justices strike down DOMA.

“What’s going through my mind is a lot of hopes and prayers that things break our way — that things break for the right side of history,” Baker said.

Gays and lesbians can legally marry in nine states and D.C.

Delaware’s same-sex marriage law will take effect on July 1. Gays and lesbians in Minnesota and Rhode Island will be able to exchange vows as of August 1, while four Michigan lawmakers on Monday introduced a bill that would allow nuptials for same-sex couples in their state.

Supreme Court passersby largely support same-sex marriage

One man held a poster of a gay couple kissing with the word “sodomy” written beneath it as he stood across the street from the Supreme Court on Monday as the decisions were announced. The vast majority of passersby and others who have gathered outside the court over the last week, however, have supported same-sex marriage.

“It will change everyone’s lives, make it so much more fair and equitable,” Mara McKennen of Richmond, Va., told the Blade on Friday as she watched Dennis Niekro and Paul Richmond of Columbus, Ohio, and 24 other same-sex couples marry at the Supreme Court.

Elizabeth North of Florida added she feels a decision that would strike down DOMA would help same-sex marriage advocates in the Sunshine State who last week launched a campaign to overturn a 2008 constitutional amendment that bans nuptials for gays and lesbians.

“It just gives us a leg to stand on,” she told the Blade. “It gives us something to fight with.”

Gwenn Andrix, a transgender woman from Bowling Green, Ohio, who also traveled to D.C. on Friday to attend the mass same-sex wedding that took place outside the Supreme Court, agreed as she held LGBT and trans Pride flags.

“I’m hoping they (the justices) move the country forward,” she told the Blade.

Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami, Jeff Zarillo, Proposition 8, Prop 8, DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court, gay rights, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo, plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case, enter the Supreme Court. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo, plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, did not speak to reporters as they left the Supreme Court with Ted Olson and David Boies and Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who co-founded the American Foundation for Equal Rights that filed the lawsuit against California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban.

“Obviously we all want to get these rulings and are hopeful that they’re going to be everything we want,” Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson told the Blade on Monday as he left the Supreme Court. “What we know is no matter what the court does, we have to keep pushing. And we have victory within reach as long as we keep reaching.”


Gay candidate touts progressive values in bid to replace Markey

Carl Sciortino, Democratic Party, Massachusetts, Middlesex, gay news, Washington Blade

Gay Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Middlesex) is seeking to represent Massachusetts in Congress. (Photo by Seth Rau)

As Democrats celebrated Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey’s win on Tuesday in the special election for an open U.S. Senate seat, a gay candidate is already working to build support for a bid to replace Markey in the House.

In an interview with the Washington Blade, Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino, 34, touted his progressive values as he talked about seeking to represent Massachusetts’ 5th congressional district in the U.S. House. A victory would make him the eighth sitting openly gay member of Congress.

“I have a strong progressive track record in the state legislature, where I served for nine years,” Sciortino said. “And I think there are many issues facing our country that will affect us for many years, and I want to bring a solid, progressive voice to the debate.”

At the top of the list for Sciortino — who launched his campaign in February — are climate change, Social Security, immigration as well as campaign finance reform in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which he said is “blocking a healthy democracy.”

“There are many things on the table that we are struggling with as a country right now, and I think at a core level, we’re really talking about whether the American Dream is available for another generation,” Sciortino said.

The lawmaker said he’d also advance his record on LGBT issues in Congress, which he said he sees as “core economic and fairness issues for families who happen to be LGBT.” He’s credited with helping beat back a constitutional amendment opposing marriage equality in Massachusetts and was lead sponsor of the state’s m0re recently signed transgender civil rights law.

“At a very base level, of course, we have to get an inclusive-ENDA passed,” Sciortino said. “Employment protections are crucial, and the fact that as a country we still can have a qualified worker fired for no other reason than they are gay or transgender is totally unacceptable.”

Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, spoke highly of Sciortino and his efforts to combat a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts that would have rescinded marriage equality in the state after it was put in place by the State Supreme Court. At the time, Solomon was the head of MassEquality.

“Carl is one, I’d say, of a handful of elected officials for whom I would do pretty much anything — and I’m not exaggerating,” Solomon said. “And it’s because he’s committed, he’s passionate, he’s smart and he knows how to get things done. He has the great combination of having really strong progressive convictions while at the same time knowing how to build alliances with others to get laws passed.”

In October, Solomon is set to officiate over the congressional hopeful’s wedding to his partner of more than five years, Pem Brown, a 29-year-old consultant for non-profit communications. The ceremony will take place in Boston at the Old South Meeting House, where the LGBT community gathered in 2003 to celebrate on the night of the Goodridge decision that brought marriage equality.

Throughout the campaign, Sciortino said his plans to marry someone of the same gender haven’t been an issue for voters.

“I think it’s significant that an openly gay candidate running for Congress can be planning my wedding while running for office and, frankly, no one really cares in a big way that we’re getting married,” he said.

Sciortino’s candidacy was dependent on a Democratic win in the Senate race on Tuesday between Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), and Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy SEAL. Now that Markey has won the Senate seat, his congressional seat is vacated, giving Sciortino the opportunity to run.

Another special election at a yet-to-be-determined date will be held to see who will represent Massachusetts’ 5th congressional district in Congress. It’s already a crowded field: others who’ve announced their candidacy include State Sen. Karen Spilka, State Sen. William Brownsberger, State Sen. Katherine Clark and Middlesex Sheriff Pete Koutoujian.

Nathan Gonzalez, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said it’s too early to handicap the race, but noted even at this early stage that Sciortino will face a crowded field.

“From what I know, I’m expecting him to be a serious and credible candidate, but I don’t think he will be the only one that those adjectives fit,” Gonzalez said.

This week, Sciortino is making a trip to D.C. to get himself better acquainted with lawmakers as well as activist organizations working on progressive and LGBT work. He didn’t immediately recall which stakeholders he’ll meet once he arrives in Washington.

“I will be walking in as a freshman member of Congress in the middle of a term and this is an opportunity to make the rounds, build support for the campaign and build relationships,” Sciortino said.

One event he will attend is a fundraiser that will take place in the home of gay Democratic lobbyist and activist Robert Raben. Gay Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) is expected to attend.

Sciortino said he sees former Rep. Barney Frank as a role model in terms of both his service to Massachusetts and to the LGBT community.

“He was fighting for LGBT equality even as a closeted member of the state legislature in the ’70s and deserves, I think, our collective appreciation,” Sciortino said. “And I can only hope to be as witty and sharp as he’s always been, so he’s a good role model in that way as well.”

In addition to legislative work, Sciortino is pushing for more action from the Obama administration. He praised Obama for his LGBT accomplishments — and put passage of hate crimes protections legislation at the top of his list — but joined in the call for an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from engaging in LGBT workplace discrimination.

“He deserves our appreciation, but, that being said, we have to hold his feet to the fire and keep pushing for it as a community until we have full equality — and a ban on discrimination for federal contractors has to be part of that strategy because when companies can continue to discriminate against our families and our community, it sends a message that it’s OK,” Sciortino said.

Chuck Wolfe, CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, was among those who spoke highly of the candidate, whom his organization has endorsed.

“Carl has been a proven leader on LGBT issues in the Massachusetts Legislature,” Wolfe said. “He’ll continue that outspoken advocacy in Congress, where we need more authentic LGBT voices speaking truth to power.”


Ohio couple ‘blown away’ by impact of marriage lawsuit

James Obergefell, John Arthur, gay news, Washington Blade, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality

James Obergefell (right) and John Arthur in happy times before Arthur was stricken with ALS (Photo courtesy of James Obergefell).

Two days after a judge issued a court order requiring his home state to recognize his marriage, James Obergefell is still blown away by the media attention he and his dying spouse, John Arthur, have received after they spent $13,500 to wed in Maryland and sue Ohio to recognize the union.

During an interview with the Washington Blade on Wednesday from his home in Cincinnati, Obergefell called the experience of flying to Maryland to marry his partner of 20 years, returning home to sue for marriage recognition and having the court order his state to recognize it “surreal and honestly, kind of hard to believe.”

“Just the reaction that we received worldwide was touching and amazing. But then for it to turn into this?” Obergefell said. “We’re blown away, we’re thrilled and happy to show the world that we’re people too. We’re just like your neighbors, just like your kids. All we want is exactly what you have.”

The story of Obergefell and Arthur, both 47, and their marriage went viral earlier this month. Obergefell married his spouse Arthur, who’s dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS,) also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, on July 11.

Their friends and family donated about $13,500 for them to fly to Maryland on July 11 in a special jet equipped with medical equipment to serve Arthur’s needs. The couple married aboard the plane as it sat on the tarmac before returning to Cincinnati the next day.

After they sued the state of Ohio to recognize their marriage, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black issued a temporary restraining order on state officials, including Gov. John Kasich, requiring Ohio to recognize the union in Arthur’s remaining days. Arthur’s death certificate must denote that he’s legally married and Obergefell is his surviving spouse.

Obergefell said he learned the judge put the order in place on Monday while at home with family — including with Arthur’s aunt, who married the couple in Maryland — after attending the hearing in which Black said he’d rule later that day. The news came from the couple’s lawyer via telephone.

“I got the call from our attorney, and he simply said, ‘We won!’” Obergefell said. “So then I got his email and I read the whole 15 pages, or most of them, to John and his aunt and his uncle after we jumped up and kissed and hugged and cried and all of that, then I just read through the document. And then, friends came over that night and we shared a bottle of Champagne.”

The judge’s decision to hand down a temporary restraining order even before he reached a final decision in the lawsuit was expected for Obergefell, who requested such action on Friday as part of the couple’s lawsuit. Still, when the order was handed down, Obergefell said the decision was “surprising, gratifying and just incredible.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement the great lengths the couple went to marry demonstrates the commitment of their love as he criticized Ohio law because it “cruelly denies them the freedom to marry at home.” A state constitutional amendment passed by Ohio voters in 2004 prohibits same-sex marriage.

“No couple should be forced to leave home to make legal their love and commitment to each other, and as a federal court this week rightly affirmed, no couple should suffer the indignity of returning home only to be told, ‘Your marriage doesn’t matter here,’” Wolfson said.

The order, which expires on Aug. 5, may have come just in time for the couple. Obergefell said Arthur has good days and bad days, but his health continues to decline.

“He has lost even more ability to speak,” Obergefell said. “I mean, a sentence or two is about all he can manage. ALS is a horrible disease; it just doesn’t let up.”

It’s hard to say how much time remains for Arthur, but Obergefell continues to have a positive mindset.

“In my heart of hearts,” Obergefell said. “I want to say indefinitely, I want to say many months more, but I don’t know. I wake up everyday, and my day is all around, ‘Be here longer. Be here longer.”

The reason the couple filed the lawsuit and went to such lengths to marry was Arthur’s death certificate. After the couple married on July 11, their lawyer informed them that Arthur’s death certificate would not designate him as married, nor would it identify Obergefell as his surviving spouse.

“It ripped my heart out,” Obergefell said. “Hearing that was enough to say, OK. I can’t stand for that. I can’t let any other gay couple stand for that. It isn’t right.”

But the decision to file the lawsuit resulted not just from the issue of the death certificate or state recognition of their marriage, but the idea that their union should be treated equally under the law.

“So it’s not the only thing; it was just the lightbulb going off over your head that — I felt responsibility, not just to John, not just to our marriage, but other people,” Obergefell said. “So, it’s not just that. We need to be equal. Simply put.”

Gov. Kasich, who opposes same-sex marriage, has the option of filing to a higher court the restraining order put in place by Black. No word has come yet from the governor’s office on whether he’ll do so.

Obergefell has a singular message for Kasich: Stand back and allow the court ruling that enables the legal recognition of him and his dying spouse to stand.

“My message to him is Gov. Kasich, we are citizens of Ohio, we are asking for nothing more than the same rights, responsibilities and benefits that every other married couple in the state receives,” Obergefell said. “That’s it. Do the right thing, sit back, and allow us to be Ohioans and Americans.”

Obergefell said he chose Maryland as the place where he and Arthur would marry because obtaining the marriage license in the state requires the presence of only one person — not both parties in the relationship — and because of the limited 48-hour waiting period that must pass before a wedding. Obergefell traveled by himself to obtain the license, then the couple returned together for the ceremony at BWI airport.

During the trip, Obergefell said one thought was continuously running through his head: “I can’t believe this is happening; I can’t believe this is happening.”

“That was closely preceded by, ‘Oh my goodness, we have such wonderful friends and family who — without prompting — jumped up and said, ‘We will make this happen for you,’” Obergefell said. “We will help make this reality.”

But when asked how it felt to have to spend $13,500 to travel to another state to marry when opposite-sex couples can do the same thing at their local courts, Obergefell said he was “pissed.”

“We live blocks from the Hamilton County Courthouse,” Obergefell said. “It makes me angry that we couldn’t just go there. And you know, that would still be physically demanding on him, but that would be a matter of getting him into his power wheelchair and taking him a few blocks to appear in person, and then coming home.”

Grant Stancliff, a spokesperson for Equality Ohio, said the legal recognition of their marriage is “huge” and “brought Ohio couples who are legally married in other states a ray of hope.”

“This is one of the biggest steps that has ever been taken toward marriage equality in Ohio,” Stancliff said. “It is a fantastic ruling for Jim and John. They really deserve the dignity and respect they were shown by Judge Black. Of course, so do the rest of legally married Ohioans.”

And Obergefell has a message for gay couples seeking to marry, but who live in one of the 37 states without marriage equality: Don’t wait another moment to obtain the recognition you seek.

“We deserve it; we’re asking for nothing special,” Obergefell said. “If you have the energy, the will, the desire, if you’re thinking about it, do it. Getting married, in a way, nothing changed, being together 20 years, but, truly, everything changed. It’s impossible to describe, but everything changed getting married.”