01x05 - Love

[bunniefuu]

In my life,
when it comes to the 14th Amendment,

there's probably no more central moment
than the case of Loving versus Virginia.

Hi, I'm Martha Jones,

Professor of History
at Johns Hopkins University.

In 1967, in 18 states

the marriages between white and people
said to be not white weren't recognized.

Loving versus Virginia

is that moment when the US Supreme Court

finally strikes down what we term
anti-miscegenation laws.

But…

um, my parents were married in 1957,
ten years earlier.

My mother, a white American woman,

my father, an African American man.

They couldn't be married
in his home state.

They were married in New York.

They were reviled and ridiculed.

We, their children, were branded…

…"unfortunates," and worse.

I am a child of Loving versus Virginia,

which is to say…

that as I try and make s…

sense of my own life…

sh**t.

You told me this was gonna happen.

One sec.

Um, Loving we owe to the 14th Amendment.

It's the Equal Protection Clause

that is going to expressly be the vehicle

for talking about
inequality before the law.

The case lends my family a kind of…

legitimacy.

So, when I think about my own story,

I think about the folks
who waged those tireless

and oftentimes thankless campaigns

to breathe into the Constitution

some kind of meaning that helps
to make my life make sense.

That's my story.

We are gathered here today

to celebrate the marriage
of the 14th Amendment…

and marriage.

Now, marriage is a symbol of your love,
your commitment,

and it's a legal bond.

The government believes that marriage
is so essential to our society

that it gives married couples
benefits and legal protections

that keep families whole.

Now, you might not know it,

but marriage and the 14th
have a long history together.

Before the Civil w*r,

enslaved people
had no legal right to marry.

Without that legal recognition,
they could be ripped apart

from their spouses
and children at any time.

Only after emancipation
and with the protections of 14

could formerly enslaved people
finally legally marry.

So, when same-sex marriage
comes before the Court in 2015,

it's not just about love.

It's about being seen
and accepted by the government

as full and equal citizens.

The present laws give the choice
of being heterosexual and legal

or h*m* and ill*gal.

Do you remember how you felt when
you first realized you were a h*m*?

Frightened.

I didn't want to be different.

I didn't want to stand out.

I wanted to have everything
that everybody else had.

Nothing more and nothing less.

I would say the first time I started
to know that I was different

was probably when I was eight
or nine years old.

I remember after the family was finished
with the Sears or JCPenney catalogs,

and they were thrown out,

I would fish those catalogs
out of the trash.

And I did that because I wanted
to cut out the pages of men's underwear.

Now, I couldn't tell you why,
I just knew I wanted those pages.

They, they meant something to me.

But I also realized that I felt…

a sense of shame, like somehow
I knew it was wrong to do that.

And that sense of shame
finally got the better of me

and I actually burned those pictures
in a coffee can in the basement.

Starting in middle school,
I sang in the choir, I did musicals,

stereotypical g*y things.

I didn't play sports.

Just one of those kids
who checked a lot of those boxes

of, "Oh, he must be g*y."

As I started to get older,
the closet door creaked open a little bit,

but I quickly slammed it shut

because at that point I was still
coming to terms with being g*y.

"The discovery of one's sexual
preference doesn't have to be a trauma."

"It's a trauma
because it's such a traumatized society."

One never knows
when the h*m* is about.

He may appear normal,

and it may be too late
when you discover he is mentally ill.

A sickness that was not visible
like smallpox,

but no less dangerous and contagious,

a sickness of the mind.

If a man's sexuality is gone,

then his possibility,
his hope of loving is also gone.

"The so-called straight person

is no safer than I am, really."

"Loving anybody,

being loved by anybody,
is a tremendous danger,

a tremendous responsibility."

It's a journey
which both people have got to make

with each other.

The first time I met John
was a couple months before I came out

and he was so comfortable in his skin
as an out g*y man

that it scared me.
But I was still closeted,

so that was one of those moments
when you meet a friend's friend.

We chatted for a bit and that was it.

At that point, I just wasn't ready
to admit to anyone else that I was g*y.

The second time John and I met,
we started talking

and at some point John said,

"Well, Jim, you'd never go out
with someone like me."

And I still don't know
where I had the wit or the courage

to respond the way that I did,

but I said, "Well, how do you know?
You've never asked."

But he didn't,

so that was meeting number two.

The third time, I was back
in Cincinnati for the holidays

and John was
having a New Year's Eve party.

So, I went to the party at John's house

and we met for the third time

and I never left.

John and I would always joke
that for us it wasn't love at first sight,

it was love at third sight.

And I met Jim and I really liked Jim,

but the thing that made me
love him the most

was, in John's entire life,

I had never seen him that happy.

It really was just
a happy life of living in Cincinnati

and just being a couple
and making friends.

Pretty darn boring!

But at that point,

Cincinnati was not a great place to be
for the LGBTQ community,

for any community that was different.

When it comes to LGBTQ rights,

Cincinnati in the '80s and '90s is,

a lot like Cincinnati in the '50s,

or any other big city
in the United States at that time.

The message to its LGBTQ citizens is,

be quiet,

stay hidden or get out.

I've been telling law students
who want to be civil rights lawyers

for 40 years,

"If you really want the work,

go to the Midwest."

When we moved to Cincinnati,
it still had Klan rallies,

burning a cross on Fountain Square.

A Cincinnati art gallery

and its director went on trial
in Cincinnati for obscenity.

The Mapplethorpe exhibit
was an example

of just where Cincinnati was at the time.

It was just too much for the city.

We were in a very, very dark period.

And I felt,
as a budding civil rights lawyer,

I had a huge amount of work to do.

I started representing low-income people
with respect to public benefits.

We did an employment project
to try and help people get jobs.

I wanted to make sure
that the American Dream

was available to everyone.

After a few years,
I began to meet person after person

who was fired
simply because they were g*y.

I brought one case after another,
trying to figure out ways

to get them equal protection
under the existing law.

I lost every one of those cases.

So, we decided to start
knocking on the door

of the Cincinnati City Council.

We brought all these clients in

and they explained
what it felt like to be fired

for a status you had no power over,

and we were able to convince the council
to pass a human rights ordinance.

This was huge.

You can't fire somebody
simply because they're g*y.

It was a great day
and there was a lot of celebration.

But…

right there on the wings
of our celebration

was the dark cloud
of Citizens for Community Values.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act
identified persons based on, you know,

something you could see,
something you could identify,

not behavior.

And for someone to come along

and claim minority status
based on behavior,

think what that would do.

That just opens Pandora's Box.

These forces
that were aligned against us

proposed a charter amendment
called Article 12.

The actual wording
of the proposed amendment is as follows.

"The City of Cincinnati
may not enact any ordinance,

regulation, rule or policy

which provides that h*m* orientation

provides a person with a basis

to have any claim
of preferential treatment."

Article 12
was passed by 64% of the vote

and that repealed
the Cincinnati Human Rights Ordinance

and it barred the city from offering
any protection of any kind

for what they called
h*m*, bisexuals,

uh, or lesbians forever.

We officially became

the most g*y-unfriendly city
in the nation.

It was really devastating
to have this pass

and to know that our fellow citizens

thought that we did not
deserve protections of any sort.

They're up in arms because they're
not getting certain privileges and rights.

There's something wrong. They're abnormal,
and I don't think it's normal.

There was just
a lot of anger and discrimination

towards the LGBTQ community.

It makes you sick and stuff saying,
"He's g*y," "She's a l*sbian," and stuff.

You know?
It should be kept in your own home.

Definitely.

In this environment,
LGBTQ people were expected to be quiet

and not raise a ruckus, and just fit in.

If you look a certain way,
if you act a certain way,

you're okay.

We were okay because we didn't
wave our own personal Pride flag.

We fit into what the people in Cincinnati
expected from two Caucasian young men.

It was a frightful time
to be g*y in that city.

We were the only city in America

with a formal statement
of hatred against gays.

How can this be legal in America?

When we founded our government
a second time,

and that's what the 14th Amendment is,

we said that all persons

are entitled to equal protection

under the law.

So, we sued to challenge
the constitutionality of Article 12.

Good evening. The g*y rights battle
in Cincinnati didn't end on election day.

Legal experts think
that this type of legislation

may not stand up
to the Constitutional test.

But there's a huge challenge in this case

that we haven't talked about yet.

And that is that in 1986,

the US Supreme Court
had decided Bowers versus Hardwick.

Mister Chief Justice,
and may it please the Court,

this case presents the question
of whether or not

there is a fundamental right

to engage in consensual h*m* sodomy.

Are we really debating
consensual sexual activity here?

I'm just saying,
if somebody tried to tell you

that what you and your partner
do in your bedroom is ill*gal,

I mean, I bet you'd feel
some kind of way about that.

You know the moment in a romantic comedy
when everything goes wrong?

Girl spills latte all over guy,

or guy confesses his love to girl
seconds before her wedding.

For Michael Hardwick,

his rom-com goes really wrong

when a police officer
walks in on private time

between him and his boyfriend.

And in 1982 in Georgia,

some private acts are punishable
by up to 20 years of jail time.

But although the charges were dropped,

for Michael his fight
was just getting started.

He sued the state of Georgia

and eventually his case
made it to the Supreme Court.

Hardwick's lawyers argue
that the 14th Amendment

protects a person's right to privacy,

which definitely
includes a person's bedroom.

How do we get here?

Go back to the 14th Amendment,
Section One.

The argument was

that a law that made it a crime
to engage in sex,

deprived the individual of liberty
without due process of law.

It's about how you have this right

to be able to make the choice
about who you want to love.

Maybe it's not written down,
but it's so important

that we're just gonna assume
that it's in the Constitution.

The Court, on a close 5-4 decision,

ruled that h*m* claims
of a right to participate in sodomy

were not protected by the Constitution.

Justice White wondered
if the Court would be asked

to give the okay to adultery and incest.

The Supreme Court comes down
and says that under the 14th Amendment,

these are not rights
protected by the Constitution.

I got shot up in Vietnam and I come back

and they tell me the Constitution
doesn't belong to me.

Well, I say bull--

A lot of people likened it to
Plessy or Dred Scott,

a Supreme Court decision

that puts them back
in a second-class citizenship position.

Equal justice under the law!
We're not getting equal rights!

The Court basically said
there's no protection for g*y people.

They can be put in jail…

for g*y sexual conduct.

This was one of the most
disgraceful decisions in the 20th century.

One of those arrested
was Michael Hardwick of Atlanta.

Bowers was a huge roadblock for progress.

It gave our government license
to discriminate against g*y people.

And so every time you raise the notion
of equal rights for g*y people,

I'd have Bowers thrown in my face.

And, lo and behold, that's what happened

in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Mr. Gerhardstein,

since Bowers, every Circuit Court
which has addressed the issue

decreed that h*m* are entitled

to no special Constitutional protection
as a special class,

because it's pretty hard to identify
in any individual h*m*,

is it not?"

"How are we even gonna
identify who they are?"

I remember that exchange,

and I remember the difficulty
Judge Kennedy had with this point

as if… she wanted to know…

who they were.

"Many h*m*
successfully conceal their orientation,

and because h*m*
are not identifiable on sight,

unless they choose to be identifiable
by their conduct,

they just can't
constitute a special class."

I actually have relived
this part of the argument

and I want-- I want a do over,

'cause I wanna turn to…

I wanna turn to the crowd.
The court room was packed.

And I wanna ask
all the gays to stand up.

They were all around her.

Then I thought, "That's not fair."

I mean, we're still living under Bowers.

Maybe just being identified
is going to put them at risk.

We had won zero protection

for these people.

When you lose a case of this consequence,

when you leave a city this defenseless,

when you leave people this lonely…

…it's hard
not to take it personally.

Invisibility.

Marginalized groups feel it all too often.

Black people's skin has traditionally
made us so invisible to society

that we have had to literally
paint our existence onto the streets.

Unlike the Black community,

the LGBTQ community's invisibility
comes from being forced to hide.

They've had to live in the closet
or face persecution,

being arrested, fired,

ostracized from their family or worse.

And because they've had to hide,

society tells us they simply don't exist.

Art by LGBTQ people
is suppressed or coded,

their identities are erased from history.

As LGBTQ poet and essayist
Adrienne Rich says,

"When someone describes the world
and you're not in it,

there's a moment
of psychic disequilibrium,

as if you looked in a mirror
and saw nothing."

Can you imagine that?

Well, the sad thing is,
too many people can.

You know, amazingly enough,
Cincinnati really started to change

in the early 2000s.

Attitudes slowly but surely were improving
towards the LGBTQ community.

I think we were increasing our numbers
of people who were progressive

and looking to make Cincinnati
a better place.

But John and I, we were never
what I would call activists.

We didn't contribute to campaigns.

We didn't campaign on anyone's behalf.

We didn't do any of that.

In some ways I think
we were a little divorced from reality

in that we weren't as involved politically
as perhaps we should've been.

But in some ways, I think living openly
as an open g*y couple

is really a political act.

Just being you,
you help people learn that,

"Oh, LGBTQ people
really aren't that different than me."

"Here I thought they were
scary and horrible,

but no, they're really
just living their lives."

"And while it might be two men,

their life really isn't
that much different from my life."

Some people feel like
the LGBTQ movement happened fast.

Really fast.

I get it.

But whether some Americans
realize it or not,

it didn't appear out of thin air.

Decades of effort
went into the LGBTQ movement.

By the early 2000s,

Americans were seeing
more LGBTQ characters on TV.

I'm g*y.

The news began to share LGBTQ stories.

In people's personal lives,

friends and family members
started coming out.

So, if someone says
the LGBTQ movement happened too fast,

remember for generations,

LGBTQ activists have been
fighting for recognition.

And now we're all
enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Lawrence v. Texas. Okay.

So, '86 Bowers versus Hardwick,

Court says if states want
to criminalize same-sex sexual conduct,

be my guest.

So, flash forward
to Lawrence versus Texas.

In Lawrence, you had two adults

who had been arrested
and charged with a crime,

because in private they were
having sexual conduct,

and the state of Texas said
that it had the power to criminalize that.

The Court in Lawrence
is looking at a state statute

very similar to the one that was at issue
in Bowers versus Hardwick.

The question for the Court now is,

does this statute violate the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment?

In 2003, the Supreme Court
has four liberal justices

and five conservative justices.

But one, Anthony Kennedy,

sees the 14th just a little differently
than his conservative peers.

"The petitioners are entitled
to respect for their private lives."

"Their right to liberty
under the Due Process Clause

gives them the full right
to engage in their conduct

without intervention of the government."

Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court,

does something
really interesting and different,

saying, you know, we have to pay attention
to the dignity of the individual.

We conclude this case
should be resolved by determining

whether the petitioners
were free as adults

to engage in this private conduct
in the exercise of their liberty

under the Due Process Clause
of the 14th Amendment.

The Court said,

you can't outlaw people's intimate lives
just because you disapprove of them.

You have to show
that it's hurting society in some way.

There's no evidence that it is.
g*y people are living like everybody else.

Our obligation
is to define the liberty of all…

…not to mandate our own moral code.

Bowers was not correct
when it was decided

and it is not correct today.

It ought not to remain
the binding precedent.

Bowers versus Hardwick should be,
and now is, overruled.

It's one of the few times
where the Court actually overrides

an earlier precedent to go the other way.

For the first time the Court says
that the right to choose your own partner

is one of those fundamental rights

protected by the Due Process Clause
in the 14th Amendment.

But there was a disagreement
within the Court.

Justice Scalia
has filed a dissenting opinion…

Scalia read from the bench,
which is something that justices do

only when they're very, very unhappy
with the results.

"Many Americans do not want h*m*
to be partners in their business,

scoutmasters for their children,
or boarders in their home."

"They view this as protecting
themselves and their families

against a lifestyle they believe
to be immoral and destructive."

So imbued is the Court
with the law profession's

anti-anti-h*m* culture…

"…that it is seemingly unaware
that the attitudes of that culture

are not obviously mainstream."

He says the Court had been
captured by elitists,

it had been captured
by the h*m* agenda,

and that it had no business
getting involved in the culture w*r.

"Let me be clear that
I have nothing against h*m*,

or any other group promoting their agenda
through democratic means,

but persuading one's fellow citizens
is one thing,

and imposing one's views
in absence of democratic majority will…"

- …is something else.

Scalia did say
in the years after Lawrence,

if I can't make laws against
behavior I consider immoral

just because I consider it immoral,

I can't run a legal system
that makes any sense,

because law has to be
based on social morality.

Well, Lawrence as it was written

took that particular
social disapproval off the table.

So, once it's established
that those relationships

are equal in respectability

to those between partners
of the opposite sex,

then the next question becomes,

"Okay, what's your reason
for saying we can't get married?"

A brief history
of g*y marriage in the United States.

Two student activists, Richard Baker
and James Michael McConnell

applied for a marriage license
in Minnesota.

They were denied by the clerk
and by the courts,

but then, in Colorado,
a different clerk, Clela Rorex,

whose name is as unique
as her place in history,

did the unthinkable…

her job.

One of the couples
that Clela legally married

was Richard Adams, an American,
and Tony Sullivan, an Australian, like me.

G'day.

But even now legally married,
Tony was denied a green card.

The federal government claimed that
they'd "failed to establish that

a bona fide marital relationship
can exist between two f*ggots."

And in response to that delightful letter,

Tony and Richard filed the first lawsuit

to seek federal recognition
for same-sex marriage.

They lost.

And then, the '90s happened.

Present Clinton signs
the Defense of Marriage Act,

banning recognition
of all same-sex marriage.

Eventually he changed his mind.

Granted, it was after
he was out of office, so that's safe.

Federally, DOMA lived on
under President Bush,

but the states had a different opinion,

leading the charge
to legalize g*y marriage.

All marriages are now equal.

Despite the Defense of Marriage Act,

courts in Massachusetts and Hawaii

decide in favor
of same-sex marriage cases.

But there's a backlash,

and in 2004,

thirteen states across the country
adopt same-sex marriage bans,

including Oregon, Michigan,
Kentucky, Utah, Louisiana and Ohio.

So, in 2011,
it was our 18th year together as a couple.

We had this tradition
of getting rings for anniversaries

and it really started
when we were together just seven weeks.

John gave me a diamond ring,

'cause he knew at that point
we were together for good.

I would say within
the first two years of our relationship,

we talked about marriage.

You know, we had friends who were
having commitment ceremonies,

but they weren't marriages.

We wanted to get married.

But we decided that, for us,
marriage has to be marriage,

it can't just be the symbolic gesture.

We want it to mean something legally.

We wanted a level of government to say,

"You guys matter. You exist. We see you."

From a state level we were being told,
"You can never get married."

And even if you were married legally
in another state,

and could show a marriage license,

the state of Ohio could say,
"It means nothing to us."

But John and I still were hopeful.

January of 2011,
I started to notice something different…

in the way John was walking.

It just sounded different.

It was like one foot

was slapping the floor
harder than the other.

It's such a minor thing, just this change
in the sound of the way someone walks

and it wasn't going away.

And I finally convinced him,

"Something's up here.
You really should go see the doctor."

"Jim," I said, "Call me
when you get the test results."

And he said he would.

And I didn't hear from him.

So, I called him
and Jim just started crying.

He said, "I'm so sorry
to tell you this over the phone.

I'm sorry to tell you, but it is ALS."

And I just…

I just felt like somebody
hit me in the chest with a baseball bat.

He was diagnosed with ALS,
or Lou Gehrig's disease.

That was the start of it.

Left foot, moved into his left hand

and then his right side
started to join in.

As John got sicker and sicker,

Jim would just sit there
and look at him and love him.

He was with him every second.

So, our days were filled with watching TV,

holding hands,

knowing the end was coming
but not knowing exactly when.

So, on June 26th, 2013,
I was working at the dining table

and John called me from his room and said,

"Jim, come in."

So, I went into his room
and he was watching the news.

The Supreme Court has just struck down
the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Oh my God.

If you're married, you get a different
level of benefits, usually higher.

And you might get some tax breaks,
like Edie Windsor.

Without recognition of her marriage,
she ended up having a $300,000 tax bill.

If her marriage had been recognized,
there'd be no tax,

so she had a lot at stake financially.

When my beautiful Thea died,
I was overcome with grief.

In the midst of my grief,

I realized that the federal government
was treating us as strangers.

This gets up to
the Supreme Court,

and the Defense of Marriage Act
was struck down.

So I read this and I thought,
"This is huge,

and I would like
to give this marriage argument

a real shot."

I'm standing next
to John's bed, holding his hand.

I leaned over,
hugged and kissed John, and said,

"Let's get married."

The phone rang and it was Jim,

and he said,
"What are you doing next week?"

And I said, "Why? What's happened?"

Here we are living six blocks
from our county courthouse.

In a perfect world, I could've
just taken John in his wheelchair

to get our marriage license,
but not in Ohio.

That really left us one choice,
and that was a chartered medical jet.

So we settled on Maryland.

It was a quiet flight…

few words.

Landed at BWI and we parked on the tarmac.

Today is a momentous day,

not only in the lives of two of the most
loving and special men I have ever known,

also in the lives of all who know,
love, and respect them

and, in the larger sense,

for those Americans who have waited
to be recognized as equal under the law

and in matters of the heart.

It was a very short service, but…

I remember at the beginning of it I said,
"Would you two please take hands?"

And I looked and I realized that they had
never not been holding each other's hands.

Put it on upside down.

We got to do something
we never thought we'd be able to do,

take each other's hands
and say, "I thee wed."

With the respect of the law
of our great land,

I now pronounce you husband and husband,

forever intertwined partners.

May love and goodwill be with you forever.

Let us all rejoice.

I feel like the…

luckiest guy

in the world.

Just happy.

That's all I can say.

It was a happy occasion.

It was truly a happy occasion.

I've never been prouder to be an American
than I was that day.

- How'd it go, Pastor?
- Good!

For John to take that ride,

for him to do that,

was just the culmination of who they were

as a couple
and what they meant to each other.

By being able to make those
promises and commitments public and legal,

everything changed.

I think John and I used the word "husband"
a few thousand times every day.

"Would you like something to drink,
husband?"

"Is the volume okay, husband?"

"I love you, husband."

I was at a picnic and we're
talking about the issues of the day,

including the Windsor decision,

and somebody says,
"Well, I have really good friends,

they were so excited
by the Windsor decision

that they flew to the airport in Baltimore

and got married right there
on the tarmac."

She says, "It's all gonna be in the paper
on Sunday." This is Friday night.

I said, "Well, that is exciting."

"I'm really happy for them."

"But, um,
you know that they've got a problem."

So, five days after we got married,
Al came to our home.

I brought one piece of paper with me.

I just brought a blank death certificate.

He said, "Guys,
I'm sure you haven't talked about this

because why would you
think about a death certificate

when you just got married?"

"But do you understand that
when John dies,

his last official record as a person
will be wrong?"

"Ohio will say he was unmarried, single,

and, Jim, your name won't be there
as his surviving spouse."

And they were furious.

I can admit it, it pissed me off.

They wanted to know more.
I mean, what would it take?

We can do a copycat case.

We can walk in the shoes of Windsor

and just frame it the same way
they framed that case.

Um, I can't guarantee a win.

I can only guarantee my best efforts,

but I'm liking the chances.

John, he thought
it was the right thing to do,

even though we both understood it meant
I would be stepping away from John

to devote some time to courtrooms,
to meetings.

To us, it was clear we had to do this.

So, John and I talked and very quickly
said, "Yes, we're in."

"Count us in. Let's do what we can."

So we filed three days later.

You have to understand
that I'm a trial lawyer.

I solve problems.

My clients' problem

was that they weren't going to get
an accurate death certificate.

So, that's all I need.
Shouldn't be too big a deal.

We're not trying to do anything
flashy, sexy, weird, unusual

here in little old Ohio.

We're just trying
to apply the Supreme Court precedent

and that's what we were doing.

- Is that all that you were doing?
-No.

But it was a first step.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Maryland.

It's legal here.

So, after we left court,

a few hours later
I was back home with John

and Aunt Tootie was there.

And the phone rang and Jim hung up and…

I'll never forget he said, "We won!"

He said, "It looks like we won!"

You know, it's something to see
somebody celebrating the fact

that his death certificate will be able
to show that he's a married man.

It was a good day.
One of the happiest moments

towards the end of John's life.
I'm confident of that.

John got to live for three months
to the day after that decision.

This one evening I started reading
one of his favorite books to him,

Weaveworld by Clive Barker,

and over the next couple of hours
he just got quieter and quieter

and he went to sleep.

And I still remember
the last sentence I read,

"Lions, he'd come with lions."

It was a beautiful love story.

That's all there is to it. It was
a beautiful love story before the illness

and it was
a fantastic love story afterwards.

John died on October 22nd, 2013

and we applied for the death certificate.

It came back with the right wording,

and we got what we sought.

But Ohio kept saying, "You know,
when we win this case on appeal

we're going to change all this back."

"We're going to honor
what the people voted for

when they banned same-sex marriage,

so this case is hardly over."

Their fight
is just getting started.

Case Obergefell v. Hodges
goes all the way to the Supreme Court.

They're joined by couples across America

fighting to have their marriages
recognized by their state

or to have their state's
same-sex marriage bans overturned.

This is big.

This could be the 14th Amendment
doing what it does best.

Or will the Supreme Court
deny this basic human right?

In January of 2015, we got word
that the Supreme Court said,

"Yes, we will accept this case

and it will now be known
as Obergefell v. Hodges."

And so the question was,
does the 14th Amendment

require states to permit
same-sex couples to marry?

I needed to be in that courtroom
to hear everything that was said.

We got there at seven o'clock
in the morning.

The whole atmosphere,

there were the people that were there
in support of g*y rights,

then there were the people
that were against it.

It was really something to watch.

Once we got into the courtroom,

we were seated over towards the side
to the left of the bench.

They only allow so many people in,

because it's not that big of a venue.

The courtroom was smaller than I expected.

I don't know, I had this image
of this enormous, grand courtroom.

Then, the justices come in.

We'll hear argument this morning
in case number 14-556,

Obergefell versus Hodges

and the consolidated cases.

One of my heroes is Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

and she's so small
that when she sits behind the podium

only, like, from her neck up shows,

but when she asks a question,

there's no doubt
that she's a very big presence.

But we have changed
our idea about marriage.

Marriage was a relationship
with a dominant male

to a subordinate female.

Would that be a choice that a state
should be allowed to have?

-To cling to marriage the way it once was?
- No, absolutely not.

The justices are constantly stopping.

I don't think
you answered my question.

Both sides.

It has nothing to do
with Article IV.

It's a constant give-and-take,
question-and-answer.

Congress shall make no law
respecting the freedom of religion.

- Yes, and I…
- It leaves this question open?

It's really amazing to watch.

I was certainly there
for the Obergefell argument

and I recall the lead counsel

defending the laws
against same-sex marriage.

He is asked by Justice Kennedy,

who's obviously, everyone knows,

the important vote in this case,

"What about respect for the dignity
of the couple?"

And the Solicitor General of Michigan
says,

"The state of Michigan has no interest
in the dignity of couples."

And people, including me, I have to say,
around the courtroom went, "What?"

- Case is submitted.

So,
the oral arguments end and,

well, you don't really know when
the Court's gonna announce its decision.

So, Jim was going to every decision day
for two months.

A few years ago, had anyone asked me,

"Jim, what's the 14th Amendment?"

I would have had no idea.

My knowledge of the Constitution
was pretty common.

I could rattle off
some of the amendments, you know.

At least what they stood for,
not necessarily numbers.

But I really didn't know the Constitution.

And yet, that Amendment
underpins this decision.

Chief Justice says Justice Kennedy
will read the first decision.

Justice Kennedy has our opinion
in case 14-556, Obergefell versus Hodges.

I startled in my chair and I…

took my friend's hands
and thought, "Okay, here it comes."

"The nature of injustice is that we may
not always see it in our own times."

"The generations that wrote and ratified
the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment

did not presume to know
the extent of freedoms

in all of its dimensions,

and so they entrusted
to future generations

a charter
protecting the right of all persons

to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning."

Everyone knew…

the significance…

of what was happening.

"No union is more profound than marriage,

for it embodies
the highest ideals of love,

fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family."

"In forming a marital union,

two people become something
greater than once they were."

"As some of the petitioners
in these cases demonstrate,

marriage embodies a love
that may endure even past death."

"It would misunderstand
these men and women

to say they disrespect
the idea of marriage."

"Their plea…

is that they do respect it,

respect it so deeply that they seek
to find its fulfillment for themselves."

"Their immutable nature dictates…

that same sex marriage
is their only real path

to this profound commitment."

"They ask for equal dignity
in the eyes of the law."

"The Constitution grants them that right."

I remember looking out
and seeing the faces of these people,

some of them openly weeping like children,

tears running down their cheeks.

No one's hard-edged
around something that profound.

It was one of the most amazing moments
I've ever seen.

I will tell my children,
I will tell my grandchildren

that I was there when the Court said,

"The door is open, you can walk through,

you are full members of society."

My first thought was,
"John, I miss you. I wish you were here."

"I wish you could know we won.
I wish you could experience this."

And that…

emotion, that feeling was quickly
followed by a surprising realization.

It was the first time in my life
as an out g*y man…

that I felt like an equal American.

Standby. We want to go back now
to the Supreme Court.

You see some of the interns
running out with the decision

Here come our intern now
with the decision.

The Court has handed down its ruling.
Here it is.

This is what it says.
"The 14th Amendment requires a state

to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex

and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex…"

So I sat in that courtroom
between my friends

knowing that word has gotten out
to the crowd out front

and that there's a party going on,
people are celebrating

and all I can think is, "Come on,
wrap this up. I want to go."

Al and I are arm in arm
and we're leading our group

and the crowd just split before us.

We would take a step
and it would split further,

and people were crying and cheering,

singing, celebrating.

You get out on the front steps

and you've got protesters on both sides,

you've got these amazing choirs singing

and, like, a totally discordant thing
'cause all the sound's happening at once

and all the media's crowding around him
and Jim's talking to 25 microphones.

I want to thank my legal team.

And especially Al Gerhardstein,

who stood by me
every single step of the way.

He gets a call from the President.

-Hi. Is this Jim?
-Yes, it is, Mr. President.

I just wanted to say congratulations.

And while he's talking to the President,
Vice President Biden goes to voicemail.

Not only have you been
a great example for people,

but you're also going to bring about
a lasting change in this country.

Yeah. Thank you.

I mean, it's just one of those moments

that you just can't do a do-over on that
and you don't want to.

It was an amazing experience
to walk through the crowd

and to feel the love.

Love is love! Love is love!

The day ends in Cincinnati
with g*y couples getting married

and the celebration is kicked off.

And so, by the power
conferred by the Supreme Court

of the United States of America,

we rejoice today in the power of love.

You may seal your vows with a kiss.

And it continued
the next day with g*y Pride Day.

I mean, how many cases end

with a parade
through the center of the city

and everybody going absolutely nuts?

-Happy Pride!

There were so many young people
lining those streets

and they were looking at Jim
and just quietly moving their lips,

"Thank you, thank you."

I'm talking about hundreds of faces

saying, "This is the way it should be."

To go through this city
that had changed so drastically,

the most g*y-unfriendly city
in the nation,

to this wonderful, welcoming place…

…I'll never forget that.

John would just…

John would think this was
the most hilarious thing.

If you told him that his medical condition
somehow had led to a historic sea change

in the United States legal system,

he would probably give you that look.

You know, like,
"Let me tell you."

That kind of expression.

But I can see him saying,

"See, Aunt Tootie,
it really is all about love."

"That's what it's about."

You know, explaining it to me.

So, I think that's what he would say.

And I think he would be
just incredibly proud

that his marriage was part of it.

It was yet another lesson

that conscientious attempts

to apply the Constitution's rules
to our national life

can produce extraordinary moments.

This is the heart of the 14th Amendment,

the original meaning of civil rights were
the rights that you must have as a person

in order to be fully present in society.

By recognizing this concept
of the basic civil rights,

the basic rights of humanity,

you know, we move forward over 150 years

and we're still figuring out
what that means.

So, the 14th Amendment,
while many years ago

I couldn't have told you
one thing about it,

now I know the 14th Amendment

and I understand how that amendment
is such an important tool

in ensuring that we are treated equally.

It helps move us towards
our American value of "We the People,"

and living up to those commitments
is one of the most meaningful things.

That's what drove me,
I had to live up to my promises to John.

I did this because I loved him and…

love wins.

It certainly did that day.

Marriage equality shows
the 14th can be a beacon of inclusivity,

a bridge to an America that
honors the love we have for each other.

Thanks in part to 14,

the LGBTQ community has gone
from being seen as a feared other

to being treated as people,

as living, breathing human beings

who deserve equal rights.

And in the same way,

another group has been
struggling for America

to recognize their shared humanity.

They too want 14 to be a bridge
to the American Dream,

but instead, they've hit a wall.