National
Ohio couple ‘blown away’ by impact of marriage lawsuit
Obergefell, Arthur spent $13,500 for Md. marriage as terminal illness looms


James Obergefell (right) and John Arthur in happy times before Arthur was stricken with ALS (Photo courtesy of James Obergefell).
Two days after a judge issued a court order requiring his home state to recognize his marriage, James Obergefell is still blown away by the media attention he and his dying spouse, John Arthur, have received after they spent $13,500 to wed in Maryland and sue Ohio to recognize the union.
During an interview with the Washington Blade on Wednesday from his home in Cincinnati, Obergefell called the experience of flying to Maryland to marry his partner of 20 years, returning home to sue for marriage recognition and having the court order his state to recognize it “surreal and honestly, kind of hard to believe.”
“Just the reaction that we received worldwide was touching and amazing. But then for it to turn into this?” Obergefell said. “We’re blown away, we’re thrilled and happy to show the world that we’re people too. We’re just like your neighbors, just like your kids. All we want is exactly what you have.”
The story of Obergefell and Arthur, both 47, and their marriage went viral earlier this month. Obergefell married his spouse Arthur, who’s dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS,) also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, on July 11.
Their friends and family donated about $13,500 for them to fly to Maryland on July 11 in a special jet equipped with medical equipment to serve Arthur’s needs. The couple married aboard the plane as it sat on the tarmac before returning to Cincinnati the next day.
After they sued the state of Ohio to recognize their marriage, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black issued a temporary restraining order on state officials, including Gov. John Kasich, requiring Ohio to recognize the union in Arthur’s remaining days. Arthur’s death certificate must denote that he’s legally married and Obergefell is his surviving spouse.

(Photo courtesy of James Obergefell)
Obergefell said he learned the judge put the order in place on Monday while at home with family — including with Arthur’s aunt, who married the couple in Maryland — after attending the hearing in which Black said he’d rule later that day. The news came from the couple’s lawyer via telephone.
“I got the call from our attorney, and he simply said, ‘We won!'” Obergefell said. “So then I got his email and I read the whole 15 pages, or most of them, to John and his aunt and his uncle after we jumped up and kissed and hugged and cried and all of that, then I just read through the document. And then, friends came over that night and we shared a bottle of Champagne.”
The judge’s decision to hand down a temporary restraining order even before he reached a final decision in the lawsuit was expected for Obergefell, who requested such action on Friday as part of the couple’s lawsuit. Still, when the order was handed down, Obergefell said the decision was “surprising, gratifying and just incredible.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement the great lengths the couple went to marry demonstrates the commitment of their love as he criticized Ohio law because it “cruelly denies them the freedom to marry at home.” A state constitutional amendment passed by Ohio voters in 2004 prohibits same-sex marriage.
“No couple should be forced to leave home to make legal their love and commitment to each other, and as a federal court this week rightly affirmed, no couple should suffer the indignity of returning home only to be told, ‘Your marriage doesn’t matter here,'” Wolfson said.
The order, which expires on Aug. 5, may have come just in time for the couple. Obergefell said Arthur has good days and bad days, but his health continues to decline.
“He has lost even more ability to speak,” Obergefell said. “I mean, a sentence or two is about all he can manage. ALS is a horrible disease; it just doesn’t let up.”
It’s hard to say how much time remains for Arthur, but Obergefell continues to have a positive mindset.
“In my heart of hearts,” Obergefell said. “I want to say indefinitely, I want to say many months more, but I don’t know. I wake up everyday, and my day is all around, ‘Be here longer. Be here longer.”
The reason the couple filed the lawsuit and went to such lengths to marry was Arthur’s death certificate. After the couple married on July 11, their lawyer informed them that Arthur’s death certificate would not designate him as married, nor would it identify Obergefell as his surviving spouse.
“It ripped my heart out,” Obergefell said. “Hearing that was enough to say, OK. I can’t stand for that. I can’t let any other gay couple stand for that. It isn’t right.”
But the decision to file the lawsuit resulted not just from the issue of the death certificate or state recognition of their marriage, but the idea that their union should be treated equally under the law.
“So it’s not the only thing; it was just the lightbulb going off over your head that — I felt responsibility, not just to John, not just to our marriage, but other people,” Obergefell said. “So, it’s not just that. We need to be equal. Simply put.”
Gov. Kasich, who opposes same-sex marriage, has the option of filing to a higher court the restraining order put in place by Black. No word has come yet from the governor’s office on whether he’ll do so.
Obergefell has a singular message for Kasich: Stand back and allow the court ruling that enables the legal recognition of him and his dying spouse to stand.
“My message to him is Gov. Kasich, we are citizens of Ohio, we are asking for nothing more than the same rights, responsibilities and benefits that every other married couple in the state receives,” Obergefell said. “That’s it. Do the right thing, sit back, and allow us to be Ohioans and Americans.”
Obergefell said he chose Maryland as the place where he and Arthur would marry because obtaining the marriage license in the state requires the presence of only one person — not both parties in the relationship — and because of the limited 48-hour waiting period that must pass before a wedding. Obergefell traveled by himself to obtain the license, then the couple returned together for the ceremony at BWI airport.
During the trip, Obergefell said one thought was continuously running through his head: “I can’t believe this is happening; I can’t believe this is happening.”
“That was closely preceded by, ‘Oh my goodness, we have such wonderful friends and family who — without prompting — jumped up and said, ‘We will make this happen for you,'” Obergefell said. “We will help make this reality.”
But when asked how it felt to have to spend $13,500 to travel to another state to marry when opposite-sex couples can do the same thing at their local courts, Obergefell said he was “pissed.”
“We live blocks from the Hamilton County Courthouse,” Obergefell said. “It makes me angry that we couldn’t just go there. And you know, that would still be physically demanding on him, but that would be a matter of getting him into his power wheelchair and taking him a few blocks to appear in person, and then coming home.”
Grant Stancliff, a spokesperson for Equality Ohio, said the legal recognition of their marriage is “huge” and “brought Ohio couples who are legally married in other states a ray of hope.”
“This is one of the biggest steps that has ever been taken toward marriage equality in Ohio,” Stancliff said. “It is a fantastic ruling for Jim and John. They really deserve the dignity and respect they were shown by Judge Black. Of course, so do the rest of legally married Ohioans.”
And Obergefell has a message for gay couples seeking to marry, but who live in one of the 37 states without marriage equality: Don’t wait another moment to obtain the recognition you seek.
“We deserve it; we’re asking for nothing special,” Obergefell said. “If you have the energy, the will, the desire, if you’re thinking about it, do it. Getting married, in a way, nothing changed, being together 20 years, but, truly, everything changed. It’s impossible to describe, but everything changed getting married.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”