At the center of the marriage cases argued Tuesday before the Supreme Court is a heartbreaking story. Petitioner James Obergefell was in a relationship with another man, John Arthur, for many years. In 2011, John was diagnosed with ALS, an excruciating death sentence of a disease that causes even the most seasoned doctor to shudder.
James took care of John as the disease progressed. In 2013, James and John decided to get married. Same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized in their home state of Ohio, so, using donated funds, they hired a medical plane to take them to Maryland, a state where it was. Due to John’s deteriorating state, they never left the plane, and were married on the tarmac in Baltimore. They returned to Ohio, and in October 2013, John passed away, not legally recognized as James’ spouse — a harm that, James argues, brought him to the Supreme Court.
Any reasonable human being is undoubtedly moved by this situation. Certainly, I am. The same year that John was diagnosed with ALS, my favorite person in the world — my father — was also diagnosed with ALS.
The next several years were nothing short of torture for me and my family as we watched my father mercilessly suffer; at one point, we too transported my dad on a medical plane that cost thousands of dollars we didn’t have. When my father died in March 2014, it was the worst day of our lives. Undoubtedly, five months earlier, it was for James, as well.
The grief that followed was often unbearable. Several months into it, I was struck by a very real thought I had never had: Maybe it would have been better had I never had a dad … or maybe it would be have been better had I never known him at all. Then, at least, I wouldn’t have this pain.
Interestingly, that question of knowing one’s parent plays a significant, yet under-the-radar, role in the marriage cases before the Supreme Court. Among others, two women, Heather Barwick and Katy Faust, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in which they discuss their experiences as children raised by women in same-sex relationships who felt deprived of their fathers.
Katy expanded on this theme in a recent piece she penned titled, “Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent.” She wrote:
Expanding on Katy’s point, the reality of redefining marriage is that, as a matter of legal policy, it promotes homes where children will not have both their mom and dad and, in many cases, will not even know who their mom or dad is. And, certainly, on an even deeper level, there is an insatiable craving possessed by every human being that says, “Where did I come from, and why am I the way I am?” Redefining marriage will, in many cases, never allow the child to know the answers to those questions.
In her brief, Heather describes her deep-seated desire to build a relationship with her father: “I love a man whom I don’t even know. A man who, by all accounts, is a lousy father. I don’t know why I love him, I just do. I ached for my father to love me. I ached for the father I knew I would never have.”
In my grief over the loss of my father, I realized there is something to be said for the old saying, “It is far better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.” Not having known my father would have been far worse than the pain of losing him.
There is no doubt that the story of James Obergefell and John Arthur presents an important issue before the Court. But on the other side are the very real stories of Heather, Katy, and the countless other children who are similarly situated both now and in the generations to come. We and the court should consider what redefining marriage across the board will result in for them.
As we contemplate these historic arguments and attempt to navigate the frenzy surrounding them, let’s do our best to listen carefully to all of the voices that have spoken to the nine justices.
Kerri Kupec is legal communications director for Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges and previously in various cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
