logo
I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose.

I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose.

USA Today4 hours ago

10 years on, as we reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges and those who are finally able to marry the person they love, I'm honored to have played a small part, even if it was from the other side of the 'v.'
Ten years ago, my name was one of the two associated with one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in modern history: Obergefell v. Hodges. The outcome granted same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide, transforming the lives of so many in a deeply personal and profoundly legal way.
But the truth is, I never intended to be a part of history. Not because I opposed marriage equality. I never did. In fact, I supported same-sex marriage before my name was ever attached to the case, despite being cast as the face of the opposition.
In August 2014, I was appointed director of the Ohio Department of Health. Not long into my tenure, legal counsel told me I would be named as the respondent in a fast-moving legal challenge related to Ohio's same-sex marriage, one that they added was likely to reach the Supreme Court.
My name was the 'opposition' to marriage equality. But I never opposed it.
At the time, I hadn't even heard of Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff who was taking legal action against Ohio's refusal to put his name on his late husband's death certificate, John Arthur, because of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
I remember saying, 'Wait, what have I done to be involved in this?' But that's how the legal system works. The case was already underway. The court needed a named state official to represent the law being challenged, and as director of the Department of Health, that person was me.
I had taken an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the state of Ohio, regardless of personal opinions. While those laws did not yet recognize marriage between same-sex couples, I saw my role as administrative and procedural, not ideological. My job was to ensure everything proceeded in an orderly fashion. If the court ruled against the state, as we expected, it would be easy for us to comply immediately.
Behind the scenes, my team prepared for that outcome. We didn't want to wait 90 days or longer to implement a ruling, but rather, we worked quietly and diligently to update forms, systems and procedures. When the decision came down, we could honor it without delay. It was important to me that we show respect ‒ not just to the law, but also to the people whose lives would be changed by it, including many of our staff members.
On June 26, 2015, when the ruling was handed down, I was in a meeting when one of the attorneys walked in and said, 'We lost.'
I nodded and simply said 'OK' before authorizing the release of all the preparations we had already made. I didn't get the historic calls from then-President Barack Obama that Jim Obergefell received. Rather, I did my job to ensure quick compliance ‒ and with relief that the case was resolved and that many people's lives had changed for the better.
Opinion: We misremember marriage equality as 'easy' fight. But it paved the way for trans rights.
From a strange role in history came an unlikely friendship
A few days before the ruling, a lifelong friend of mine in a same-sex relationship called and said, 'Rick, when are you going to lose, because I want to be the first person in Ohio to get married?' I laughed and reminded him that I had no insight into the court's deliberations. But then he asked me something I'll never forget: 'Will you read the Bible at my wedding?'
I agreed immediately.
Days after the decision, I read the Bible at my friend's wedding. The ceremony was filled with joy, surrounded by friends, including, somewhat ironically, many top Ohio Republicans. It was a moment of real celebration, not just for him and his husband, but for everyone who had waited so long to be recognized by the law.
Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point.
About ten months later, a mutual friend arranged coffee, and that's when I met Jim Obergefell for the first time. I was a little nervous. After all, I was the named opponent in the case that resulted from the death of his husband.
But the moment we met, we clicked, and I told him I was glad he was doing well and that I had never been happier to lose in my life. From there, we became friends.
It's a real friendship. Not just polite handshakes at public events, but phone calls, favors, lunches and showing up for each other in ways big and small. Jim has given me a platform to talk about the values I care deeply about: civility, dignity and respect for every human being. And sometimes even now, we speak together, not as plaintiff and defendant, but as two people whose lives were shaped by the same story from very different angles.
I never set out to be a part of a civil rights case. But I am proud of how I handled the responsibility. I'm proud that our team made it easy to comply with the ruling. I'm especially proud of the unlikely friendship that emerged from it.
Ten years later, we reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges and the people who were finally able to marry the person they love. I think about the sense of relief and the legal protections now provided to all married couples. And I'm honored to have played even a small part in that story, even if it was from the other side of the 'v.'
This anniversary gives us the opportunity to set politics aside and reaffirm our commitment to protecting this constitutional right to marriage equality. A decade from now, and decades after that, all individuals can continue to enjoy their right to marry the one they love and experience all that comes with it.
Rick Hodges is the named defendant in the 2015 landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, due to his former role as director of the Ohio Department of Health from 2014 to 2017, and is also a former Ohio lawmaker. Now an assistant clinical professor at Ohio University's College of Health Sciences and Professions, he's also the director of the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health (OAIPH) and the Ohio University Health Collaborative (OUHC).

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Spain's top court upholds amnesty law for Catalan separatists
Spain's top court upholds amnesty law for Catalan separatists

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Spain's top court upholds amnesty law for Catalan separatists

By Joan Faus BARCELONA (Reuters) -Spain's Constitutional Court on Thursday upheld core elements of a disputed amnesty law enacted by the Socialist government after Catalonia's failed 2017 secession bid, under which more than 300 people have been pardoned. "This is magnificent news for Spain," Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told reporters in Brussels. He reiterated his view that the amnesty served "to guarantee Spain's unity as well as our development and prosperity and coexistence between citizens and regions". The amnesty was agreed in 2023 between Sanchez's Socialist Party and two Catalan separatist parties in exchange for their support of his minority coalition in a parliamentary vote that allowed him to stay on as prime minister. The Constitutional Court's ruling offers some relief for Sanchez while allegations of corruption involving senior officials ensnarl his Socialist Party. "Amnesty is not banned by the Constitution, and its adoption, when it responds to an exceptional situation and a legitimate public interest, may be constitutionally admissible," ruled the court, where a majority of judges had been nominated by the Socialists. The conservative opposition has argued the legislation is unconstitutional and was passed solely as a Socialist manoeuvre to stay in power. The top court ruling, which stems from an appeal lodged by the conservative People's Party, does not directly benefit former Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont, who lives in self-imposed exile in Belgium. The judge handling Puigdemont's case has said the amnesty does not apply to him as he is also being sued for embezzlement, an accusation he denies. Puigdemont has appealed the judge's decision, but the Constitutional Court will not rule on the matter until later this year or next, according to a court spokesperson. Puigdemont was Catalonia's head of government in 2017 when the region unilaterally declared independence from Spain, prompting Madrid to impose direct control.

B.C. municipalities allowed to take on more debt for small projects, says province
B.C. municipalities allowed to take on more debt for small projects, says province

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

B.C. municipalities allowed to take on more debt for small projects, says province

Municipalities in British Columbia are fiscally conservative whether they want to be or not — but the province is letting that change, at least a little. "The last time [we changed] the amount local governments could borrow to build infrastructure, Pavel Bure, Kirk McLean and Trevor Linden were making a run to the playoffs for the Canucks," said Ravi Kahlon, B.C.'s minister of housing and municipal affairs, referring to the NHL team's run of success in the '90s. Municipalities aren't allowed to run operational deficits on a yearly basis. If they want to build or renew city infrastructure but don't have enough reserves, they generally have to approve capital debt through a referendum or an alternative approval process (AAP) — a type of reverse referendum where a project is approved if fewer than 10 per cent of electors fill out a form in opposition. On Tuesday, the province announced changes that will: Allow municipalities to borrow up to $150 per person without a referendum or AAP if the term of the borrowing is less than five years, up from $50. Raise the borrowing limit without a referendum or AAP from five per cent of annual general revenue to 10 per cent for projects with a longer repayment schedule. The changes won't allow municipalities to bypass public input for their biggest projects, but will allow more small projects to be approved quickly, said Kahlon. "This is something local governments have been asking for for more than 30 years and we believe it is time for them to be able to catch up," he said. WATCH | B.C. to allow municipalities to take on more debt Are municipalities Dickensian orphans? While some municipalities have taken pride in not going into debt for projects, the change came as a relief to cities that feel hamstrung by the current model. "So kudos to the government. But like Oliver Twist said, 'Please sir, we want some more,'" said Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog, adding that it would help many cities deliver the increased housing and density mandated by the province. "There is a tension around municipalities being expected to deliver housing … it's not as if we're paying for it in the direct sense, but we're responsible to ensure that the housing is serviced appropriately," he said. Nanaimo has failed three times in the last two years to approve debt for a new operations centre through the alternative approval process, and Krog argued there's a funding gap between cities and other levels of government. "Municipalities are treated differently. We're not recognized under the Constitution as a level of government that has an inherent right to exist," he said. "But we deliver the most basic of services, the services that people may not wish to pay for, but if we turn them off tomorrow would have a tremendous impact on their lives." Public approval still necessary for big projects As more than 90 per cent of B.C. municipalities are under 100,000 people and $200 million in yearly revenue, virtually all big ticket items will still need AAPs or referendums to be approved. One example is playing out in Saanich, where on Wednesday the deadline passed for residents to write in opposition against a proposed $150-million operations centre to replace the one that was built in the 1950s. Organizers of the campaign against the AAP are confident that enough forms in opposition of the plan have been submitted, and argue the municipality should hold a referendum on the project instead. "We chose to go the AAP route because it was a way for us to limit the potential additional cost to this project," said Saanich Mayor Dean Murdock, who estimated a recent referendum to approve a new pool in neighbouring Victoria cost $300,000. "When you consider that so many of our facilities are going to require replacement or significant upgrades, I think the AAP is an appropriate tool," he said, adding that if it failed, Saanich would likely embark on a referendum. The municipality with the most discussion around AAPs over the last year may be Kamloops, which has used them to move forward on a performing arts centre, arena multiplex, and a new RCMP detachment. Kamloops deputy mayor Mike O'Reilly said that beyond the cost, going the AAP route instead of a referendum is a pragmatic choice. "If an AAP fails, you can then move to a referendum," he said. "If you do a referendum first, and it does not pass … you cannot fall back."

Arkansas could ban same-sex marriage if Obergefell is vacated
Arkansas could ban same-sex marriage if Obergefell is vacated

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Arkansas could ban same-sex marriage if Obergefell is vacated

More than two dozen U.S. states have laws that would limit marriage equality if the Supreme Court overturned its legalization of gay marriage, yet it's not clear how that would play out in Arkansas Why it matters: Today is the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized same-sex marriage, and access to marriage equality faces increasing opposition today. Zoom in: Arkansas Lawmakers banned same-sex marriage in 1997, but a lawsuit was filed in 2013 and the ban was overturned by a district judge in 2014. That ruling was temporarily stayed while the state appealed the judge's decision. The state Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in 2015 after the federal ruling, declaring it moot. Both sides could resume legal arguments before state courts if the Supreme Court overturned the federal ruling. By the numbers: Nationally, 32 states have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality — currently unenforceable because of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. This means about 60% of LGBTQ+ adults live in states where access to marriage equality would change if Obergefell were struck down, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Driving the news: Republican lawmakers this year have backed ballot measures to undermine same-sex couples' right to marry. Measures seeking to reverse the Obergefell decision have been introduced in Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, NBC News reported in February. In Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas, lawmakers have introduced bills that don't explicitly refer to the Supreme Court ruling but would create a category called "covenant marriage" for one man and one woman. The other side: Ballot initiatives have cropped up in Idaho, Nebraska, Virginia and Arizona to let voters decide on marriage equality in 2026 elections — in response to anti-same-sex marriage efforts. Context: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 2022, in overturning Roe v. Wade, said the court"should reconsider" its opinions protecting same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage. Thomas, one of the court's conservative justices, wrote in a concurring opinion that they should revisit other precedents decided under substantive due process to "correct the error."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store