When I met my husband, I knew I wanted to be with him for the rest of my life, until death parted us. Most people feel that way when they meet the love of their life. But most people don't think that the time to part would come so soon. Or at least, when it does come, they don't think that they will have to fight for the basic dignity of having their marriage recognized.
Sadly, that is what John and I went through.
I met John in 1992, and for 21 wonderful years we built a life for ourselves in Cincinnati, Ohio. Weworked as IT consultants, participated in community organizations and doted on our nieces and nephews. For much of our relationship, because we were a gay couple, we thought that marriage would be closed to us. Even though we were like every other loving and committed couple that we knew, we were denied the protections and dignity that come with marriage.
In 2011, we received the devastating diagnosis that John had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. There is no cure. We knew that we had limited time. I had the honor of caring for John as ALS stole every ability from him. Rarely a day went by that he didn't apologize to me for getting sick, even though he carried no blame.
Two years after his diagnosis, we watched with great interest as Edie Windsor fought the woefully named "Defense of Marriage Act" in the courts. Edie's story resonated with us because Edie was fighting for recognition of her marriage to Thea Spyer following Thea's death. Like Edie and Thea, John and I knew that our fight would continue after John died.
Weeks after Edie's victory at the Supreme Court, we decided to get married. Ohio, where we built our home and our lives together, still does not permit same-sex couples to marry. Though we would have loved to be wed in our home state, our friends and family helped us charter a medically equipped plane to fly to Maryland. There, on the tarmac while still on board the plane, John and I were finally legally married.
We returned to Ohio to live out John's last days as a married couple. But Ohio refused to recognize us as married for any purpose.. We fervently hoped that John would live to see the day that our marriage would be acknowledged by our home state. The thought that John would be listed as "single" and the "surviving spouse" entry would be blank on his death certificate broke both of our hearts. We went to court seeking recognition of our marriage on John's death certificate. The judge granted our request to have his death certificate properly issued when the time came.
John tragically did not live to see marriage recognized for all gay and lesbian couples in Ohio. He passed away last October. He was only 47. And still, the state continues to seek to deny him his dying wish. Though I have John's death certificate that lists him as "married" and identifies me as his surviving spouse, the state has appealed the court's ruling and plans to remove my name from his death certificate should they succeed.
Nobody should ever have to suffer the indignities that John and I have endured. A ruling striking down Ohio's marriage recognition bans in the context of death certificates would mean no couple would have to live through the uncertainty that we did in the most painful moments of our lives. Every family deserves the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to take care of each other in good times and bad, until death parts them. Every day that couples like John and I go on without that right is too long.
I continue to fight for John's last wish to have our marriage respected. And I fight for all caring and devoted Ohio couples, too.
James Obergefell is a plaintiff in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, one of four marriage equality cases that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term. The ACLU is proud to be co-counsel in this case.
Learn more about marriage for same-sex couples and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.