
How the historic fight for marriage equality came together in Tennessee 10 years ago
"It was a surreal experience," said Bill Harbison, one of the Nashville lawyers in the Supreme Court case.
The world was swirling around Thomas Kostura 10 years ago.
Kostura, whose New York marriage had not been recognized when his husband was stationed in Tennessee, was in the middle of the most important U.S. Supreme Court case for gay rights in the country's history.
'It was basically this hurricane going on around us, and we were kind of in the eye of the storm,' he said. 'It was a whirlwind.'
On June 26, 2015, the nation's highest court legalized marriage equality nationwide, proclaiming that the Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry.
Tennessee was at the center of it all.
How Tennessee wound up in the fight for gay marriage
The landmark case featured plaintiffs from four different states, one of which was Tennessee. The success of Tennessee's case came from strategy and a little luck.
Abby Rubenfeld, a prolific civil rights attorney in Nashville who has fought for the LGBTQ+ community for decades, was the architect of the case.
Look back at celebrations: 10 years since Obergefell v. Hodges granted same-sex marriage
It started after another state passed a law protecting marriage equality, Rubenfeld said. She remembers a reporter calling to ask if there would be a challenge to Tennessee's law restricting marriage to a man and a woman.
Without thinking much of it, Rubenfeld said, 'Hell yes!'
University of Tennessee College of Law professor Regina Hillman saw the story. Hillman called Rubenfeld and said she wanted in, and the case was in motion.
They needed a few things.
One was an advocacy organization's backing. Rubenfeld, a member of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, secured its support.
They also needed the resources of a big law firm. In Knoxville, a boyfriend of one of Hillman's students overheard her discussing with Rubenfeld who might be a good fit. The young man said, "My dad will do it," Rubenfeld said.
'And we were like, 'Shut up,'' Rubenfeld said. 'Then finally I was like, 'Who's your dad?'"
Bill Harbison, he said.
'Oh my God! Are you kidding?' Rubenfeld remembers saying. "Because at the time, Bill was president-elect of the Tennessee Bar Association, he was at a well-respected firm. He was kind of perfect."
'Necessary for me to step up'
The lawyers put out advertisements with LGBTQ+ rights groups to find plaintiffs and ended up with three couples.
Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo, whose marriage in San Francisco was not recognized in Nashville, was one of them. Mansell said he just wanted the law to treat him as it treated his straight family members and 'felt that it was necessary for me to step up.'
'I was very angry that my marriage was not recognized in all states,' Mansell said.
Kostura and his husband, Ijpe Dekoe, were with a group of friends at dinner in Memphis when they first considered joining. Their friends pitched them the idea.
'It takes like 10 years to get to the Supreme Court,' Kostura remembers thinking. Why not? He knew other cases for marriage equality were happening around the country. 'Someone's going to get there before us,' he thought.
Rubenfeld said the key plaintiffs were Sophia Jesty and Valeria Tanco, a lesbian couple who worked at the University of Tennessee veterinary school. One of them was pregnant, and they wanted to get both their names on the birth certificate.
They sued in October 2013 and needed a decision quickly. The baby was due in March.
Case works its way to Supreme Court
Judge Aleta Trauger ruled in their favor a day before the baby was due, Rubenfeld said.
The state of Tennessee appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was combined with others from Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. This time, the states won.
Here's a fact about lawyers: They like to win cases. But here's another fact: sometimes you've got to lose now to win later.
'When we lost, everybody in the gay rights movement like rejoiced,' Rubenfeld said.
Until then, every circuit court that had taken up a marriage equality case had decided in its favor. Without a loss, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't have felt it necessary to rule, Rubenfeld said.
The plaintiffs appealed. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Harbison immediately called Rubenfeld.
'It was almost a surreal experience,' Harbison said.
Dig deeper: He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried.
When the case was argued at the Supreme Court, Harbison remembers, Rubenfeld would occasionally remind him of the massive moment they were in the middle of.
'We're making history,' he remembers her saying.
'Representing millions' a burden but reason to stay courageous
As the case was growing, so was the burden on its plaintiffs.
It had been just 15 months between when the lawsuit was filed in district court and when it was accepted at the Supreme Court. The gravity of the situation caught up to Kostura.
'All of a sudden I realized that I'm representing millions of people,' Kostura said. It was more responsibility than he'd ever had.
He remembers being recognized in public for the first time, by a waitress who saw his name on his debit card..
"I hope you guys win," she told him.
It made him feel the weight of his role but also gave the courage to get through it, he said.
He leaned on his friends — those 'who can make a good martini,' he said — as well as his attorneys. They insulated him from the frenzy that surrounded the case. They were like a 'suit of armor,' he said.
Ruling 'hit us in the stomach'
Mansell was getting ready for work when he saw the decision on the news. He immediately called out sick. A circus of media attention, interviews and photographs came. He was flown out to the gay pride parade in San Francisco.
Kostura was getting a haircut at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.
'I tried not to jump because the barber had the clippers up against my head,' he said.
For him and Dekoe, the ruling precipitated an emotional release he had not been fully expecting. To get through it, you have to convince yourself you're going to win, Kostura said, and doing that had taken an emotional toll without him realizing.
'It hit us in the stomach,' he said.
Rubenfeld was in the late Judge Phil Smith's courtroom when the decision came down. She went into the jury room with her daughter, then a student at Middle Tennessee State Univerisity, and checked SCOTUSblog.
'I jumped up and hugged her and ran in the courtroom, didn't even look if Judge Smith was on the bench, and just blurted out — 'We won! We won marriage equality!'' Rubenfeld said. 'And people cheered! In Nashville, Tennessee, people clapped and were happy, which meant a lot.'
Harbison was walking out of Chancery Court when he ran into a lawyer on the back steps who told him the news. He got together with Rubenfeld and as many people on the legal team they could gather, and got lunch at J. Alexanders, and 'the rest of the day is kind of a blur.'
'We did a lot of drinking that day,' Rubenfeld said, laughing.
Couples 'dancing with joy' to marry
As others partied, Chris Sanders had his nose in his laptop.
The Tennessee Equality Project had organized a massive campaign to see which county clerk's offices were making the changes necessary to marry same sex couples. They had volunteers and staff in every courthouse in the state.
'I was dug in at my laptop hours and hours and hours while people were scurrying around clerk's offices in East, West and Middle Tennessee,' Sanders said. 'And I will never forget getting those reports — just a constant screen, county by county by county.'
In Davidson County, one of the quickest in the state, the first same-sex couple married was Nikki Von Haeger and her then-fiancée.
They didn't plan to be.
Here's how she remembers the decision to get married that morning going: 'Do you want to just, should we go? Should we just go down to the courthouse?' she remembers asking her fiancée. They had been engaged for about a year at that point and following the case on SCOTUSblog. She expected a line down the street, but they happened to be the first ones out.
Megan Barry, then a mayoral candidate, was down there ready to officiate anyone who walked through the courthouse doors.
'She married us, and it was the strangest, one of the strangest moments of my life, because afterward, we went and got barbecue and did laundry,' Von Haeger said. 'And then all of a sudden it was blowing up everywhere.'
Dozens of other same-sex couples also came to the courthouse that day.
'What struck me so much was just the volume of people who showed up, who were finally able to avail themselves of this fundamental right that had been denied,' Barry said. 'They were practically dancing with joy and happiness.'
Von Haeger and her ex-wife have since divorced, but the day remains a good memory, she said.
'And not just for marrying somebody that I was in love with,' she said. 'But also having the choice and the freedom to do so, which … for a while there I didn't think was going to happen.'
'We made it through that together'
Ten years after the ruling, all the Tennessee plaintiffs in the case have moved away.
Mansell and Espejo live in Southern California, where Mansell works as a conflicts analyst for a law firm. Kostura, an operations manager for an art company, lives in Washington, D.C., with Dekoe, who retired from the military and works in contracting.
Both Harbison and Rubenfeld said they consider it the proudest moment of their careers. And for Rubenfeld, who has tirelessly chipped away and struck down laws oppressive to LGBTQ+ people for decades, the decision was especially meaningful.
'I felt like I was channeling all my colleagues from the gay rights movement, especially all the gay male attorneys who passed away during AIDS, because it kind of decimated our ranks of gay and lesbian attorneys in the '80s,' she said. 'I feel like I was channeling all of them, and they were all getting to participate through me."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration to deport Abrego Garcia again
The Trump administration said it would send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, to an unnamed "third country" as part of its renewed effort to deport him, multiple outlets reported on Thursday. The big picture: The Trump administration has included deportations to non-origin countries in its immigration policy with permission from the Supreme Court. Catch up quick: Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. earlier this month, and the Justice Department was ordered to release him from prison in Tennessee while he awaited trial. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said on Wednesday that Abrego Garcia is likely to eventually be deported to El Salvador, where he's originally from. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to allegedly smuggling undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Zoom in: "Our plan is that he will be taken into ICE custody and removal proceedings will be initiated," Jonathan Guynn, deputy assistant attorney general at the DOJ's civil division, told the court on Thursday, per NOTUS. "To El Salvador or a third country?" U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis asked. "To a third country is my understanding," he responded. What they're saying: "We have said it for months and it remains true to this day," Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Axios. "He will never go free on American soil." State of play: Guynn said there was no timeline for the removal.


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court sides against migrant in deportation case
The Supreme Court installed a tighter timeline for removable migrants to challenge their deportations as part of its decision on Thursday in a case involving a Jamaican immigrant who had tried to avoid being sent back to his home country. The Supreme Court found that once migrants receive a final order of removal, a 30-day window for them to seek review of that order is triggered. The ruling was roughly 5-4, with the three liberal justices dissenting and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining most of the dissent. Pierre Riley, the Jamaican national at the center of the case, had followed the law and challenged his final removal order in the immigration court system. But when he attempted to seek review from the appellate court of the immigration court findings, the appellate court said its hands were tied because it had been more than a year since Riley had received his initial removal orders. Riley came to the United States on a six-month visa three decades ago. He never left, was arrested and convicted of drug felonies, and served in prison until 2021. Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to deport him to Jamaica in January that year, kicking off the weedy legal process involving Riley challenging his removal. The chain of events that ensued showcases how migrants facing removal can end up going down a windy due process road in the immigration and federal courts. In this case, Riley had 10 days under the law to challenge his removal in an immigration court, and he did. He argued that although he was removable, returning to Jamaica would put his life at risk because a drug kingpin there had killed two of his cousins and would likely go after him, too. Riley invoked what is known as a "convention against torture" rule, which migrants can use to contest being deported to their home country. An immigration judge, who is an administrative judge working within the Department of Justice, granted Riley "withholding of removal" to Jamaica, meaning he could be deported, just not to Jamaica. The government appealed the immigration ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which overturned the immigration judge's finding, meaning Riley could once again be deported to Jamaica. Migrants' next avenue of appeal is to ask a federal circuit court to review their deportation order, and Riley did this. But upon reviewing Riley's case, the appellate court found Riley was too late. The appellate court said that it had no jurisdiction to help him because the original removal orders he received in January 2021 are what set off a 30-day deadline to seek review of his deportation. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged the "legitimate practical concerns" of Riley's case but said the law assumed immigration cases would be handled expeditiously and that the 30-day deadline being triggered right at the time a migrant is ordered removed should, in theory, be a non-issue. "The Government reminds us that such proceedings have often lasted many months and even years. . . . That is surely not what Congress anticipated when it enacted the streamlined procedure," Alito wrote in a footnote. Attorney Dilan Esper noted on X that Thursday's order could shed light on a recent controversial emergency order the Supreme Court issued this week that cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants, including a group of men bound for South Sudan, to countries they are not from. The order on Thursday indicated that the law does not offer a clear avenue for migrants to raise convention against torture claims for third countries after they receive final removal orders. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent the majority opinion in Riley's case did not make logistical sense. "In holding that Riley was required to file his appeal 16 months before the order he sought to challenge existed, the court surely moves from the border well into the heartland of illogic and absurdity," Sotomayor wrote.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The hideous legacy of the conservative Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade
After experiencing severe headaches in February, Adriana Smith (no relation to Penny Smith), a registered nurse in Atlanta, went to the hospital twice. Days later, she was found unresponsive in her home. Smith was rushed to the hospital where doctors discovered blood clots in her brain. She was declared brain dead. Advertisement Smith, 30, was two months pregnant with her second child. But because of Georgia's draconian six-week abortion ban, Smith, against her family's wishes, was kept on life support for four months to keep the baby alive. On June 13, her son, weighing 1 pound, 13 ounces, was delivered prematurely via an emergency Cesarean section. Advertisement 'He's expected to be OK,' April Newkirk, Smith's mother, told an Atlanta TV station about her grandson, Chance. 'He's just fighting. We just want prayers for him. Just keep praying for him.' On June 17, Smith was removed from a ventilator, ending another sorrowful chapter in the Republican war against women's bodies. It should also be noted that Smith received more medical attention after she was declared brain dead than she did in the days before her boyfriend woke up to find her gasping for breath. During two visits to the hospital, Smith was given medication but no tests that might have revealed the danger that was discovered only when it was too late to save her. In 2019, Republican Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, the law that mandated that Smith's body should be kept viable because she was pregnant. It was Everything changed three years ago this month when the conservative-led Supreme Court unsettled nearly 50 years of settled law by overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to severely curtail or prohibit abortion. More than 20 states now have abortion restrictions or bans. Of course, the overturning of the 1973 law that legalized abortion did not end the procedure. Women still need health care, and abortion is health care. In fact, abortions have Advertisement Among those unable to seek care elsewhere are some women who have faced dire consequences. According to a These laws aren't pro-life, nor do they protect women or children. On the day that Smith was taken off life support, This Saturday, Smith Advertisement This is an excerpt from , a Globe Opinion newsletter from columnist Renée Graham. . Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at