Good morning! I’d like to start you off today with a happy story. It centers around two men in Ohio, where I still live for another week, who love each other very much.
James Obergefell is now married to John Arthur, who has an advanced form of sclerosis that is expected to take his life shortly. When the couple went to Baltimore to be married, they traveled on a plane especially equipped for Arthur’s illness. They were married on the plane as it sat on the tarmac.
But, since Ohio will not recognize their Maryland marriage, Arthur’s death certificate would list him as unmarried and would not list Obergefell as a surviving spouse. In addition, the couple wishes ultimately to be buried together as married partners, and that would not be allowed.
Ok, that’s happy, but with a tinge of sadness. But here’s where the real happiness comes in: the two men filed a lawsuit and just yesterday a Cincinnati judge, citing United States v. Windsor (the SCOTUS case last month that struck down section 3 of DOMA) decided that if someone gets married in another state, just as if they had been issued a driver’s license in another state, that Ohio must recognize their union.
Although conceding that the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in United States v. Windsor did not directly involve state power to ban same-sex marriages, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black declared that the Court’s ruling was pointing toward that issue. He also applied some of the equality principles in the Windsor majority opinion to support his order.
In the Ohio case, Judge Black noted that the Windsor decision was “ostensibly limited to a finding that the federal government cannot refuse to recognize state laws authorizing same sex-marriage,” but then he added that “the issue whether states can refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is now surely headed to the fore.”
Along with his reliance upon that decision, the Cincinnati judge also pointed to earlier Supreme Court rulings in favor of equality for gays and lesbians, but not involving marriage, and said those precedents all worked against an Ohio state constitutional provision that recognizes marriage only for legal unions of a man and a woman, even if a couple living in Ohio has been legally married in a state that permits it.
James and John are going to be listed as wed when John dies, and they’re going to be buried side-by-side as husbands. And their love has created a future where other men and women can do the same regardless of who disapproves and regardless of the size of their congregation.
What they want is what I want when Michaelyn and I reach our golden years. Love is wanting to hold a person’s hand even after death, something pretty much everybody wants in life. Ironically, the people who are greatly concerned with keeping the bodies of these men apart claim to do so out of love. How…perverted. Love is not doing everything in one’s power to deny a person what they would have for themselves.
Those who cannot see the beauty of James and John will shriek that we’ve defied god. But if god cared for humankind even a fraction as much as James and John care for each other, then it wouldn’t be a concern. The human race is in short supply of love like that (especially in its churches), and even if that bitter god existed I’d say that it’s worth it to defy him to protect the best of humanity.