Telling the stories of LGBTQ+ people is crucial to winning and maintaining marriage equality and other civil rights, Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the historic 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, said during the latest American Forum, December 5, moderated by Jane Hall, a professor in the School of Communication. 

Before a capacity crowd of 140 people in the Doyle-Forman Theater, Obergefell discussed how he became an activist, the power of narratives, and his worries that the Supreme Court may take away civil rights he and other have fought for. The talk was hosted by the SOC and the Kennedy Political Union.

Hall noted that there has been a dramatic shift in public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage over the years and asked Obergefell— coauthor of the 2017 book, Love Wins: The Lovers and Lawyers Who Fought the Landmark Case for Marriage Equality—about the importance of stories in changing attitudes.

He said that by the time Obergefell v. Hodges reached the Supreme Court, he was joined by more than 30 plaintiffs from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. They included parents in Ohio who wanted birth certificates for their kids and same-sex couples who wanted the right to marry.

“During the process of this case, it became obvious to me how important stories are,” Obergefell said. “Because stories are how we connect with others, how we can change hearts and minds.”

Obergefell also spoke about how he became the lead plaintiff in the case. “I never once in my life thought I would sue the state of Ohio. I wasn't an activist,” he said. “Doing something like that was so far out of reality for me that I couldn’t ever imagine it. But you never know what position you'll find yourself in.”

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to the same federal benefits as straight couples. 

At the time the high court struck down part of DOMA, Obergefell’s partner, John Arthur, was dying from ALS.

“We’d been together almost 21 years,” Obergefell said. “We’d talked about marriage early on. In the mid-90s, we wanted to get married, but we didn’t want just a symbolic ceremony. We wanted marriage and all that came with it.”

Obergefell said he was holding Arthur’s hand when they learned the Supreme Court had struck down part of DOMA. “I just spontaneously proposed,” he said. “I realized, here’s our chance.”

He and Arthur decided to wed in Maryland, because that state did not require both of them to appear in person to obtain a marriage license. “I wanted to make sure I kept John as safe and comfortable as possible during [that] process,” Obergefell said. 

Arthur at that point was completely bedridden. “He could move his right hand,” Obergefell said. “He could say a sentence or two at a time. That was it.”

Through the generosity of friends and family members, Obergefell arranged for a medical jet to fly them to the airport in Baltimore. They landed on the tarmac, “and we wed,” Obergefell said. “That’s all we wanted to do. We wanted to live out John’s remaining days as husband and husband.”

A few days later, Obergefell said, mutual friends introduced him to Al Gerhardstein, a civil rights attorney. The lawyer came to the couple’s home and showed them a blank Ohio death certificate. Gerhardstein explained that Ohio had its own form of DOMA, and when Arthur died, the space for the surviving spouse would be left blank.

“It broke our hearts,” Obergefell said. “It made us angry.”

The lawyer asked if they wanted to do something about it, and after a brief conversation, Obergefell and Arthur said yes. Days later, Obergefell became a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, initiating the legal journey that led him to the Supreme Court.

Obergefell said that many people wrongly assume he was personally excoriated and attacked as the case was unfolding. 

“It's never once happened,” he said. “And I really think it’s because John’s and my story was a story of love and loss. And pretty much everyone has been through the experience of loving someone . . . and having that person die.”

In response to a question from Hall, Obergefell said he was worried about the future of rights for transgender people as well as marriage equality.

Obergefell spoke of the case the Supreme Court considered a few days earlier, in which conservative justices, who hold a 6–3 majority, appeared to be inclined to uphold a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.

“We have a court that has already taken away the right to make decisions about your own body [by overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022]. I really do fear they’re going to do the same thing for these trans kids and their parents,” Obergefell said. “And that’s putting the trans community in a terrible place. It’s going to do nothing but increase suicide rates, mental health issues, and when that Tennessee law is upheld, it’s just going to proliferate across the country.”

Obergefell said he’s “absolutely” worried about the future of marriage equality. He noted that when the conservative judges on the high court stripped away the right to an abortion in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence that the Supreme Court should reconsider previous rulings, including the one legalizing same-sex marriage. 

Though he lost his 2022 bid for a congressional seat in Ohio, in a district that he said was sharply gerrymandered, Obergefell said he’s glad he ran. 

“I really focused on the things that really make a difference in [voters’] lives,” he said. 

Ultimately, creating and maintaining lasting change depends on winning over public opinion, Obergefell said.

“The way to create lasting change in civil rights is when the public is on the side of doing what’s right,” he said. “We have to keep reminding people of just how important marriage is, how vital it is to our health and well-being. What marriage means, what our families look like, what our families mean to us. We have to keep sharing those stories, especially for younger people. There’s a generation that’s now grown up, [for whom] marriage has always been an option. But it hasn’t always been that way.”