Latest news with #JohnArthur
The Independent
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Same-sex marriages have doubled in the decade since Supreme Court decision
Same-sex marriages have doubled in the decade since the Supreme Court made the union legal across the country. This week marks 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that state bans on same-sex marriages violated the Constitution. The ruling stemmed from a case titled Obergefell v. Hodges. Plaintiff Jim Obergefell of Cincinnati, Ohio, had been in a relationship with John Arthur for almost two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS in 2011, The Associated Press reported. It was another Supreme Court decision from 2013, that repealed a law denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which allowed Obergefell and Arthur to get married in Maryland. But because of the laws in the couple's home state, their marriage would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate. Arthur died months into their legal battle challenging Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates. The Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2015, that the right to marry is 'inherent in the liberty of the person' and therefore protected by the Constitution. Now, there are between 820,000 and 930,000 same-sex marriages across the U.S., The Washington Post reported. In 2014, there were 390,000 same-sex marriages around the country in states where the union was legal. The Post analyzed data from Gallup, the Pew Center and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law. A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. A Gallup poll from May found that 68 percent of people believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law as valid, while just 29 percent believe they should not. Still, 32 states still have laws that would ban same-sex marriages if not for the Obergefell ruling, Axios reported, citing the independent think tank Movement Advancement Project. About 60 percent of LGBTQ adults live in states with some type of marriage equality ban. There is also a growing number of voices advocating for the overturning of Obergefell, with Republican lawmakers in several states introducing measures to urge the Supreme Court to end same-sex marriage. Obergefell told NBC News in a recent interview: 'Ten years later, I certainly wasn't expecting to be talking about the threats to marriage equality, the potential for Obergefell to be overturned.' 'Marriage is a right, and it shouldn't depend on where you live,' he argued, adding that he remains hopeful in the fight for marriage equality. 'My husband, John, was a very optimistic person, and he certainly had an impact on me,' Obergefell said. 'I have to be confident that we will prevail.'
CBS News
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
10 years after landmark Supreme Court ruling, Healey calls same-sex marriage "non-issue" in Massachusetts
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015 followed years of national wrangling during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared that marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. More than a decade before the Supreme Court weighed in, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. Healey: Same-sex marriage a "non-issue" Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said same-sex marriage will always be protected in the state. Healey told WBZ-TV's Jon Keller on Thursday that the future of same-sex marriage is a "non-issue," saying there's bigger issues people are concerned about. "Marriage is marriage, whether you're gay or not and that's the law here, it's going to continue to be that way," Healey said. "And you know what people really care about? They care about how they're going to pay their bills, can they afford a home, do they have access to jobs and economic mobility. That's what I'm focused on as governor and I will certainly make sure that we defend the rights of all to marry in our state and that people, gay and straight, that their rights, their freedoms are protected." What is Obergefell v. Hodges? James Obergefell and John Arthur, who lived in Ohio, married in Maryland since same-sex marriage was banned in their state by a voter-approved amendment in 2004. The couple married after Arthur was diagnosed with ALS. The legal battle began when they learned their marriage would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate. After a court approved recognizing their marriage on Arthur's death certificate, Ohio appealed and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision argued that marriage is guaranteed under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is fundamental, calling it "inherent in the liberty of the person" and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize such unions performed in other jurisdictions. In CNN's presidential exit polls in 2004, only a quarter of Americans thought same-sex couples should be able to legally marry, with a larger percentage favoring civil unions instead. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges, some polls show nearly 70% approve of same-sex marriage. contributed to this report.
Associated Press
3 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
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.'
Associated Press
6 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments?The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
RNZ News
08-06-2025
- RNZ News
John Arthur appeals conviction, blames law for gasfitting offences
By Shannon Pitman of John Arthur of Whangārei says he has been a registered gasfitter since 1985. Photo: NZ Herald An unregistered gasfitter caught installing hazardous systems and using homemade registration stickers on campervans has claimed it is the law, not his work, that is the problem. John Arthur was sentenced in the Whangārei District Court in 2024 for unlawfully working as a gasfitter and falsely advertising himself as a registered professional. His fraudulent activities were reported after two incidents of work he conducted on motorhomes in Te Awamutu and Whangārei. In September 2022, he installed a gas water heater into a motorhome owned by the McKean family of Whangārei. The heater failed after two days and when the McKeans phoned another technician to check the work, it was found to have serious safety risks. That technician told the McKeans the risk for an explosion was high. In November 2022, Arthur installed gas systems into a motorhome in Te Awamutu after falsely claiming he was licensed to do so. By 2023, he was also found to be falsely offering gasfitting services at a Northland marina, issuing fake inspection sheets and using a falsified registration number. Arthur was convicted and ordered to pay $8000, which included reparation to the victims. He appealed his sentence almost immediately. At his appeal hearing in the High Court at Whangārei on Tuesday before Justice Mathew Downs, Arthur claimed he was pressured by his lawyer and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) to plead guilty. His previous counsel, Jarred Scott, was called in to give evidence at the hearing. He told the court Arthur was advised of his options and that he would receive a "lesser sentence" if he pleaded guilty. Arthur then questioned him about that advice. He said he had spent 40 years in the automotive industry and wanted to know if Scott would have given different advice had he known about Arthur's experience in gas work. Scott replied he knew that at the time, as was mentioned in a phone conversation. "Nothing's changed since giving you the advice in the first place," Scott said. Justice Downs asked Scott whether Arthur had mentioned he was unhappy about pleading guilty. "Effectively, he didn't like that he was guilty," Scott responded. Lawyer for the PGDB, Wilson Main, told the court he was aware Arthur was unhappy to plead guilty but his issues were around law changes. "I couldn't see a viable defence," Main told the court. Crown lawyer Sam McMullan said the key features of the case were the fact Arthur was not a registered gasfitter and the work he carried out on the McKean's campervan was dangerous. "You weren't registered to do the work though, were you?" Justice Downs then asked. "That's the whole area I'm approaching with the Minister of Energy, the Honourable Simeon Brown," Arthur said. "I described everything that had gone on and how to rectify this situation his voice was 'this is just common sense, get together with the gas board and have a conversation'." "Listen to my question," Justice Downs said. "You weren't registered to do the work though, were you?" "I was registered as an automotive gasfitter, sir," Arthur responded. "Were you registered under the Plumbers and Gasfitters Act 2006?" "No." Arthur had been told from the outset, in order to defend the charges relating to dangerous work, he needed to get an expert, which he said he could not afford. Arthur said he was trained in 1985 in the automotive gasfitters trade and didn't like that there was a new board telling people what to do. He gave an oral submission that he had created his own sticker system with identification numbers of the work he had done kept in his cloud storage. "It's alleged you were displaying bits of cards with registration numbers that were bogus," Justice Downs said. "All that information is stored on an iCloud," Arthur said. Justice Downs said he was struggling to see what the iCloud had to do with the numbers. "Why are you showing these people a document with these numbers on it?" Justice Downs asked. Arthur said no one had listened to him through his court case and if he could have a meeting with the gas board, all could be explained. Justice Downs said that he could not organise that as the hearing was related to the charges Arthur was convicted of. Arthur said if the conviction remained, he requested to be resentenced with a discharge without conviction. "I've already paid the price," Arthur said. Justice Downs has reserved his decision for two weeks. - This story was first published by the New Zealand Herald
