Human rights activist Jim Obergefell worries that LGBTQ+ rights are still at “serious risk.”
Amid fears about rollbacks on LGBTQ+ rights, President Biden on Tuesday signed off on the landmark Respect for Marriage Act to protect gay and interracial marriages on a federal level. But one of the nation’s foremost human rights advocates is worried it doesn’t go far enough.
Jim Obergefell, whose case paved the way for marriage equality, has mixed feelings about the new law. While he supports its bipartisan passage, he believes it only offers a “partial solution” should marriage equality be overturned by the Supreme Court and worries that LGBTQ+ rights remain at “serious risk.”
“The reason I’m not really celebrating all that much is, in my opinion, the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t respect the LGBTQ+ community or our marriages, our relationships, or our families, because it would allow states, once again, to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” Obergefell tells Katie Couric Media.
As he points out, the new bill doesn’t go as far as his 2015 case, Obergefell vs. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage across all 50 states. But, under the Respect for Marriage Act, states wouldn’t be forced to allow same-sex couples to marry (though it does require that any marriage that was legal where it took place to be recognized).
We caught up with Obergefell in a new interview, where he shared how he would improve the bill, and how his life has changed in the seven years since his pivotal case helped establish a landmark nationwide precedent for gay couples everywhere.
What the Respect for Marriage Act entails
Less than a week after its final passage, Biden officially signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law with hundreds of people gathered around on the White House South Lawn. The bill had been among his legislative priorities in Congress’s current lame-duck session.
“Today is a good day,” Biden said shortly before signing the historic legislation. “A day America takes a vital step toward equality, for liberty and justice, not just for some, but for everyone. Toward creating a nation where decency, dignity and love are recognized, honored and protected.”
The Respect for Marriage Act officially recognizes marriage as between two individuals regardless of their “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” The bill also repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996 that limited the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.
The historic bill was first crafted in response to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that the court would reevaluate Obergefell v. Hodges in a concurring opinion overturning the landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.
The legislation didn’t seem promising until this past July, when 47 House Republicans, including Florida congressman Carlos Gimenez and Missouri’s Ann Wagner, unexpectedly voted in favor of it. But the Senate delayed its vote on the bill until after the midterm elections. Eventually, it was sent back to the House for a final vote after it under went revisions to address Republican concerns about religious liberty.
What the Respect for Marriage Act Doesn’t Do
In a bid to gain more Republican support, the Respect for Marriage Act still leaves room for religious entities to deny services for same-sex couples. Under a new amendment, it wouldn’t require religious nonprofits to provide “any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”
On top of this, churches and universities can still opt out of recognizing same-sex marriages without losing the ability to be exempt from various state and federal taxes. Obergefell says these protections are nothing more than an attempt to use religion “as a weapon against a group of people they don’t like and whose families do not look like theirs.”
But some LGLTQ+ groups, including Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), told PBS they could counter this amendment by pushing to pass the Equality Act, would prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in nearly aspect of public life.
How Obergefell thinks the bill should be amended
Though he doesn’t profess to know the best policy solution, he emphasizes that his case, Obergefell v. Hodges, should “never be at risk of failing” and hopes to see the Respect for Marriage Act strengthened to ensure marriage equality, no matter the state.
“While I’m happy we have this as a potential protection, should marriage equality be overturned by the Supreme Court, I’m not incredibly happy with it because in my opinion, we shouldn’t be having this conversation to begin with,” he tells us. “We should have a Supreme Court that actually believes in precedent and supports and defends the decisions that have been made in the past unless they’re egregiously wrong.”
After all, it hasn’t even been a decade since he helped change gay rights forever in America. In 2013, he sued Ohio after the state refused to recognize his marriage to his late husband, John Arthur, who Obergefell remembers as an “amazingly charming and social person.”
“The drastic changes in me personally came about because John and I loved each other, and we weren’t willing to be treated as less than we wanted to exist in the eyes of our government,” he tells us.
Since that ruling, Obergefell says he has gone from an “accidental” to a “purposeful” activist,” even becoming a published author, and Ohio state House candidate, though he lost to Republican incumbent D.J. Swearingen.
What this new law means for the public at large
Public support for marriage equality has never been higher: A record 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, now support same-sex marriage, according to a Gallup poll. Even some religious institutions, including the Mormon Church, have come out in support of the federal Respect for Marriage Act, despite the church’s long-held opposition to same-sex relationships.
The new law also comes as the number of people identifying as LGBTQ+ has risen to a record 7.1% of the population this year, according to Gallup. “The fact that so many young people are identifying as part of the LGBTQ+ community is a result of the progress we have made in this country,” he tells us.
But Obergefell acknowledges that any time there’s progress, there’s also some major backlash. More than 300 anti-LGBT bills — about half of which target transgender kids — have been introduced across the country this year, according to the nonprofit Human Rights Campaign. And so far, at least 25 bills have been enacted in Republican-controlled states.
Meanwhile, wedding cake makers and other business owners have refused service to same-sex couples, actions that the Supreme Court has been repeatedly asked to weigh in on. The latest one involves Colorado graphic designer Lorie Smith, who says her religious beliefs prevent her from making custom websites for gay couples. While her refusal goes against state law, Smith claims it also violates her First Amendment rights and the outcome could have far-reaching impacts on free speech.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June. In the meantime, Obergefell says activists will continue to fight until “our nation firmly embraces that we are all human beings that deserve the same rights, the same protections, and the same dignity. “
