Once named opponents in the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, now they're friends
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The case behind the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago is known 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, 2015, decision, lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell was at an event for an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization 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 know, you tell me. Do I want to meet 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 know if congratulations are in order because this began with you losing your husband, but I'm glad you won and I've never been so happy to lose in my life.'
Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were longtime partners living in Cincinnati. After Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011, Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health. They flew to Maryland to marry before Arthur died in 2013, and the legal battle began when they learned their union wouldn't be listed on the death certificate handled by the Ohio Department of Health.
Although Hodges' role as health director required him to defend the state, it didn't mean that his personal views aligned with the state's position.
'Personally, I was supportive of their efforts, as were some of the people who worked on the case for the state. Professionally, I had a job to do and I did it to the best of my ability," Hodges said.
In the months leading up to the court's decision, Hodges had gathered a group of Ohio lawyers to develop the paperwork needed to create the licensing system for judges to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses on the day of the decision if the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, said Obergefell's lead attorney in the case, Al Gerhardstein.
Gerhardstein said Obergefell and Hodge's friendship is unusual in a 'very positive and exemplary way.'
'We need more models like that as we struggle with difficult social issues," he said.
The duo said they see each other two to three times per year and have routinely spoken together at conferences and panels.
'It's funny, whenever we go into an event together, everybody claps for him and looks at me like I'm the prince of darkness until we're done, and then it's great," Hodges said.
They are seeing each other more often this year since it's the 10th anniversary of the decision. Recently, they saw each other at a symposium at Northern Kentucky University and at another event, sponsored by Equality Ohio, the same organization that first led to their introduction.
'I can't think of other cases where the plaintiff and the defendant are friends. They might exist, I don't know about them," Obergefell said. "But I'm really glad that Rick and I are friends.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
From sports to birth certificates, Supreme Court to confront more anti-transgender policies
Just days after the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in one of its most important cases of the year, the justices must now decide the fate of other anti-trans policies. As soon as Monday, the nine are set to confront six separate cases that have languished on their docket — some for over a year and a half — including several appeals that deal with whether transgender athletes can play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. The high court's 6-3 ruling this month in US v. Skrmetti delivered a significant legal setback for trans youth and their advocates, who have spent years litigating against health care bans that have been enacted in more than half the country. But the decision was ultimately limited to questions about health care and left other key legal issues for the trans community unresolved. 'The whole gamut of discrimination against trans folks really is at the place where it was before Skrmetti,' said Josh Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents plaintiffs in some of the pending appeals. 'Skrmetti resolves a hugely important issue, but they resolve it in a way that is narrow and doesn't have an immediate fallout for other types of discrimination.' The court could agree this week to hear arguments in the backlog of cases dealing with trans issues — putting transgender rights front and center for a second year in a row. It could also dispose of the cases summarily, which would mean requiring lower courts to review their decisions in light of Skrmetti. In addition to the sports issue, the justices are juggling appeals that deal with health insurance plans that deny coverage for gender-affirming care and an executive order signed by the governor of Oklahoma that bars the state health department from allowing anyone to alter the sex or gender on their birth certificate. If the Supreme Court summarily sends those cases back to a lower court, it would likely wipe out decisions that were favorable to transgender advocates. Whether the justices take up any of the cases for their next session is no small thing: The court has been reluctant in recent years to consider the extent to which the Constitution or other federal laws provide protection to transgender Americans. Before the Tennessee case, the last time the high court decided a major dispute dealing specifically with trans rights was 2020, when the justices said that federal civil rights law protects transgender workers. But that decision was limited to the workplace, and the court declined in Skrmetti to decide whether the rationale in that case can be applied elsewhere. Attorneys for the states of Idaho and West Virginia, which both enacted anti-trans sports bans in recent years, wasted no time responding to the Skrmetti decision, filing rush briefs at the Supreme Court arguing that the justices should not close the door on the other pending cases. The lower courts had concluded the laws at issue in those cases violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. Because the court decided the Skrmetti case on the ground that Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban classified based on age and medical use, the states' lawyers argued, it doesn't help resolve challenges to the sports bans, which turn more directly on sex. 'While Skrmetti is a landmark decision, our specific question remains,' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said last week. Attorneys for Idaho also urged the justices to hear their case, arguing that simply sending it back down for a lower court to reconsider the challenge in light of the Skrmetti decision 'is unlikely to accomplish anything but more harm to women and girls.' 'Whether designating sports teams based on biological sex violates the Equal Protection Clause is a critically important issue that has been roiling the lower courts, frustrating female student athletes, and confounding every level of government for years,' they wrote in court papers. Research on trans people's athletic performance is scarce, and there have been no large-scale scientific studies on the topic or on how hormone therapies may affect their performance in specific sport categories. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in Skrmetti made no mention of sports bans, which have been enacted in more than two dozen Republican-led states. But conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear in a concurring opinion that she's against adding transgender status to the short list of personal identities like race and sex that receive special protection under the 14th Amendment. And she pointed to sports bans to argue that courts shouldn't be over-policing decisions made by elected lawmakers. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'But legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the equal protection clause is satisfied.' While bans on gender-affirming care for minors have become a political lightning rod in recent years, other restrictions on access to health care for trans Americans have garnered less attention, including ones impacting adults. Last year, North Carolina and West Virginia asked the high court to review an appeals court decision that deemed unlawful those states' exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care in insurance plans they sponsor. The Richmond, Virginia-based court held that the exclusions in both state plans violated the Equal Protection Clause. When the states first asked the Supreme Court to step into the disputes, they pressed the court to take the cases up notwithstanding the justices' announcement that they would hear the Tennessee case, which presented similar legal questions. West Virginia, in particular, stressed the fact that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals also decided that its plan violated various federal laws, making the need for further review more necessary because the Skrmetti case dealt only with an alleged constitutional violation. 'Skrmetti did not address the statutory questions that the Fourth Circuit resolved against West Virginia. As for the equal-protection analysis, the level of scrutiny, the importance of a state's interest, and the relative 'fit' between that interest and the state's solution are different in the Medicaid context. So lower courts and States will still need more help after Skrmetti,' they wrote. The court is also considering hearing an appeal over a challenge to a Kentucky law similar to the Tennessee ban. There's significant overlap between the two cases, but a key distinction lies in the fact that the challengers in the Kentucky case are asking the court to decide whether that state's ban also violates a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children. During oral arguments in the Tennessee case last December, Barrett appeared interested in whether a ruling in the state's favor would foreclose courts from considering any future challenge to the law based on the parental rights issue — signaling that there may be support on the bench for addressing that piece of the debate at a later time. Karen Loewy, an attorney with the LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal, said that while the court's Skrmetti decision makes it harder for litigants to fight back against laws like Tennessee's, the conservative majority was careful to 'leave the door open' for other arguments to be considered by the justices in the remaining cases. She cited both the parental rights issue and the court's decision to not address whether the 2020 ruling had any application outside of the employment space. 'Those are all still tools and legal arguments that are very viable in challenging other kinds of discrimination,' Loewy said.
Hamilton Spectator
20 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Takeaways from interviews with families forever changed by diseases that vaccines can prevent
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — In the time before widespread vaccination, devastating infectious diseases ran rampant in America, killing millions of children and leaving others with lifelong health problems. Over the next century, vaccines virtually wiped out long-feared scourges like polio and measles and drastically reduced the toll of many others. Today, however, some preventable, contagious diseases are making a comeback as vaccine hesitancy pushes immunization rates down. And well-established vaccines are facing suspicion even from public officials, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist , running the federal health department. 'This concern, this hesitancy, these questions about vaccines are a consequence of the great success of the vaccines – because they eliminated the diseases,' said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'If you're not familiar with the disease, you don't respect or even fear it. And therefore you don't value the vaccine.' Anti-vaccine activists even portray the shots as a threat, focusing on the rare risk of side effects while ignoring the far larger risks posed by the diseases themselves — and years of real-world data that experts say proves the vaccines are safe. Some Americans know the reality of vaccine-preventable diseases all too well. Here are takeaways from interviews with a few of them by The Associated Press. Getting a disease while pregnant can change two lives. Janith Farnham has helped shepherd her daughter Jacque through life for decades. Jacque, 60, was born with congenital rubella syndrome, which resulted in hearing, eye and heart problems at birth. There was no vaccine against rubella back then, and Janith contracted it in early pregnancy. Though Janith, 80, did all she could to help Jacque thrive, the condition took its toll. Jacque eventually developed diabetes, glaucoma, autistic behaviors and arthritis. Today, Jacque lives in an adult residential home and gets together with Janith four or five days a week. Janith marvels at Jacque's sense of humor and affectionate nature despite all she's endured. Jacque is generous with kisses and often signs 'double I love yous,' even to new people she meets. Given what her family has been through, Janith finds it 'more than frustrating' when people choose not to get children the MMR shot against measles, mumps and rubella. 'I know what can happen,' she said. 'I just don't want anybody else to go through this.' Delaying a vaccine can be deadly. More than half a century has passed, but Patricia Tobin still vividly recalls seeing her little sister Karen unconscious on the bathroom floor. It was 1970, Karen was 6, and she had measles. The vaccine against it wasn't required for school in Miami where they lived. Though Karen's doctor discussed immunizing the first grader, their mother didn't share his sense of urgency. 'It's not that she was against it,' Tobin said. 'She just thought there was time.' Then came a measles outbreak. After she collapsed in the bathroom, Karen never regained consciousness. She died of encephalitis. 'We never did get to speak to her again,' Tobin said. Today, all states require that children get certain vaccines to attend school. But a growing number of people are making use of exemptions. Vanderbilt's Schaffner said fading memories of measles outbreaks were exacerbated by a fraudulent, retracted study claiming a link between the MMR shot and autism. The result? Most states are below the 95% vaccination threshold for kindergartners — the level needed to protect communities against measles outbreaks. Preventable diseases can have long-term effects. One of Lora Duguay's earliest memories is lying in a hospital isolation ward with her feverish, paralyzed body packed in ice. She was three years old. It was 1959 and Duguay, of Clearwater, Florida, had polio. It was one of the most feared diseases in the U.S., experts say, causing some terrified parents to keep children inside and avoid crowds during epidemics. Given polio's visibility, the vaccine against it was widely and enthusiastically welcomed. Given polio's visibility, the vaccine against it was widely and enthusiastically welcomed. But the early vaccine that Duguay got was only about 80% to 90% effective. Not enough people were vaccinated or protected yet to stop the virus from spreading. Though treatment helped her walk again, she eventually developed post-polio syndrome, a neuromuscular disorder that worsens over time. She now gets around in a wheelchair. The disease that changed her life twice is no longer a problem in the U.S. So many children get the vaccine — which is far more effective than earlier versions — that it doesn't just protect individuals but it prevents occasional cases that arrive in the U.S. from spreading further and protects the vulnerable. When people aren't vaccinated, the vulnerable remain at risk. Every night, Katie Van Tornhout rubs a plaster cast of a tiny foot, a vestige of the daughter she lost to whooping cough at just 37 days old. Callie Grace was born on Christmas Eve 2009. When she turned a month old, she began having symptoms of pertussis, or whooping cough. She was too young for the Tdap vaccine against it and was exposed to someone who hadn't gotten their booster shot. At the hospital, Van Tornhout recalled, the medical staff frantically tried to save her, but 'within minutes, she was gone.' Today, Callie remains part of her family's life, and Van Tornhout shares the story with others as she advocates for vaccination. 'It's up to us as adults to protect our children – like, that's what a parent's job is,' Van Tornhout said. 'I watched my daughter die from something that was preventable … You don't want to walk in my shoes.' ____ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
How to protect yourself from ticks year-round
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ticks can be active in any season and it's important to check for and remove the bloodsuckers as quickly as possible — especially after you've been outside hiking, gardening or enjoying nature. 'Humans are outside more in summer so we hear about more tick infections ,' said Sam Telford, an infectious diseases expert at Tufts University. But he urges caution year-round because 'every season is tick season.' While tick populations vary a lot regionally, some Northeastern states including Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are seeing 'above average' numbers of American dog ticks this year, said Telford. And New York state is seeing a higher number of reported deer tick bites this year than last year, said Saravanan Thangamani, who studies tick-borne diseases at SUNY Upstate Medical University. How ticks can spread disease Ticks, like mosquitos, need to feed on blood. But instead of a quick prick, they are slow feeders – with hooked mouth parts that attach into the skin of deer, rabbits, dogs and people. There are many different species of ticks found globally and only some spread germs that can make people sick. A main worry is blacklegged ticks, also called deer ticks, which can spread Lyme disease. Once found mainly in New England and pockets of the Midwest, the ticks are now present over a wider range. A tick bite doesn't always lead to illness. 'If you remove a tick within 24 hours of attachment, it's fairly unlikely that you will get infected,' said Telford. How to check for ticks Ticks are usually found low to the ground, in leaf litter or grassy areas. Check your clothing for ticks and do a full-body check including under the arms and behind ears, knees and hair. 'If you're out all day long, try to do a quick check for ticks every few hours,' said Bobbi Pritt at the Mayo Clinic. 'When you go back inside, take a shower. That will wash off any unattached ticks, and you're also more likely to spot any other ticks.' Use tweezers to remove the tick and grasp it as close to the skin as possible to pull from the head. If you don't have them handy, you can also use your fingernails, the edge of a credit card or any semi-sharp object. How to keep ticks away The best approach is to minimize tick exposure altogether. Bug sprays containing ingredients such as DEET can be sprayed on exposed skin to ward off ticks and mosquitos, said Telford. Wear long sleeves and pants, and you can also spray clothing with repellents containing permethrin, a chemical similar to a natural ingredient in chrysanthemums that makes ticks avoid the flowers. Protect your pets from ticks Don't forget to pay attention to outdoor pets. Medications can prevent fleas and ticks from attaching to a dog's skin. But it's still a good idea to check the fur after being outside. 'Wherever pets can't easily groom themselves, that's where the ticks will be – on the ears, around the muzzle area, under the collar, between the toes,' said Thangamani. Dogs and cats roaming outdoors can also bring ticks into the house. 'If pets bring ticks in, a tick can live in the house for months until it finds its next blood meal,' which could be another household member, he said. What to do after a tick bite After removing the tick, keep an eye on the skin around the bite. If a rash or flu-like symptoms appear within several days or weeks, see a doctor. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend tick testing because results may not be reliable. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
