By Daniele Johnson
Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right and, thereby, legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide. I recently had the pleasure of listening to an interview of Jim Obergefell, Plaintiff in that iconic case. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he and the named-Defendant, Richard Hodges, are now good friends who were, unbeknownst to Mr. Obergefell, on the same side all along.
As it turns out, the underlying dispute was with the Ohio Department of Health, not personally against Mr. Hodges. Mr. Hodges, as the director of the Department, had a legal duty to abide by Ohio State’s prohibition of same-sex marriages. Consequently, when Mr. Obergefell’s husband passed away in Ohio, the Department refused to allow his name to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate. As the head of the Department, Mr. Hodges was named as the Defendant. The parties never spoke until the ruling was handed down and Mr. Obergefell reluctantly agreed to speak with Mr. Hodges months later. It was only then that he learned that Mr. Hodges shared in his belief that same-sex marriages should, in fact, be legalized.
There are at least three lessons to learn from the legal and social saga. First of all, every single socially significant advancement in our county started with cases heard by the lower courts. In my opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is an extension of this country’s civil rights movement. Jim Crow was a systematic attempt by state and local governments to suppress the advancement of African-Americans. The dismantling of these laws was instigated by the calculated efforts of such legal minds and activists as Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, and John Lewis. The end of Jim Crow and its ideologies did not begin with the passing of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Its demise began with the attack of these laws at the lower-court level. For example, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), involved an African-American father whose attempts to enroll his daughter in a “white” school were denied by the local school board. The Supreme Court declared that the policy of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional. In Hearts of Atlanta Motel v. the United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the owner of the establishment argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional and that he had a right to refuse to rent rooms to African-Americans. This argument, of course, was rejected by the United State Supreme Court. Loving v. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), involved a biracial couple who was sentenced by the lower court to a year of incarceration for violating the ban on interracial marriages instituted by the states Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The Supreme Court overturned the convictions and declared that any raced-based restriction on the fundamental right to marry is unconstitutional. These are but a few examples of how civil liberties created by Supreme Court cases actually stemmed from decisions rendered at the lower-court level. Lesson learned: Although decisions issued by the “lower courts”, which include each counties’ Superior, State, Juvenile and Magistrate Court, garner little or no attention, they form the foundation of rulings that shape our nation’s legal projection and social conscience.
Secondly, Obergefell v. Hodges is a lesson in Civics 101. Our government is designed in such a way as to allow the vote of the people to determine the social trends of our country. Ideally, the laws passed by the legislature reflect the wishes of the constituents. However, average voters are not privy to cases pending before the lower courts. Most likely, they are unaware that civil liberties are possibly being encroached upon by the application of outdated laws that are no longer consistent with current social values. They may also be unaware that the protections of those civil liberties begin with the laws created and/or changed by their publicly elected officials, not with the judiciary. Lesson Learned: It is our civic duty as citizens in this country to get informed, get involved, and vote for local, state, and federal officials that align with our social and political compass. Failure to do so could result in a stagnation of this country’s social evolution and the enforcement of archaic laws that no longer have a place in polite society.
Thirdly, the apparent diabolically opposed parties named in Obergefell v. Hodges were actually in agreement. The fact that they are now friends is a beautiful ending to their story. However, I can only imagine the level of stress and animosity that could have been avoided if the parties had simply talked. Perhaps they could even have worked together to achieve their shared belief in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Lesson Learned: A refusal to speak with someone because of presumed differences can deprive one of, not only a long-lasting friendship, but also a political and social ally.