The Face of the Case: Obergefell Tells How He Became Part of Legal History

James Obergefell grew up in a blue collar, Catholic family in Sandusky, Ohio, got an undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati, and became a high school teacher.

“I was deep in the closet,” he said as he told his story during a program Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024, in the Lubar Center at Marquette Law School. He came out in the early 1990s while he was in graduate school and met John Arthur. Within a short time, they considered themselves married. Legally, they were not – at the time, same sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the United States. But beginning in the mid -990s, they decided they wanted “marriage and everything that came with it,” as Obergefell put it.

Obergefell told Derek Mosley. executive director of the Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education, who moderated the conversation before a capacity audience of more than 200. how the legal landscape began to change, including a US Supreme Court decision in 2013 that struck down a federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act. During the same period, Arthur’s health declined sharply after being he was diagnosed with ALS in 2012.

After the Supreme Court decision, Obergefell and Arthur decided to get married. Because Arthur’s health was so precarious, they needed to act quickly. And because legalities involving marriage varied across the country, they ended up taking a medical ambulance flight to the Baltimore/Washington airport in Maryland, where they could have a ceremony without ever getting off the airplane. Three months later, Arthur died.

What emerged from their marriage was a court case focused on whether Obergefell was the surviving spouse legally. And that case was joined with similar cases that ended up before the US Supreme Court, resulting in the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 which made same sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Obergefell recounted the events of the day the Supreme Court decision was issued. “I burst into tears” in the courtroom, he said. “For the first time in my life as an out gay man, I felt like an equal American,” he said. The audience applauded when he said that.   

Obergefell’s name became a big part of American legal history. And Obergefell himself moved from being a person of no prominence and no notable involvement as an activist into a continuing spotlight. It made him, as Mosley put it at the Law School program, “the face of the case,” someone who continues to be an advocate for rights of many kinds and someone who tells his personal story openly and with impact. Obergefell said he has realized how “stories matter — stories can change hearts and minds.”

“Going through something like this has a profound impact,” Obergefell told the audience. “It changes you.”

Obergefell said he is still motivated by anger over things he sees as wrong and the need to advocate for the rights of people facing many different situations. He also has less intense involvements, such as co-owning a wine label that has raised more than $250,000 for causes supported by him and the co-owner.

“Nothing makes me happier than to know that young people today are growing up in a world where the question of their right, their ability, to get married and have that relationship recognized is there.” Obergefell said.  “I had the absolute honor and privilege of being part of making things better for people younger than I am.”

Video of the one-hour program may be viewed by clicking below.

Continue ReadingThe Face of the Case: Obergefell Tells How He Became Part of Legal History

Remembering a Marquette Lawyer (and Judge) on the Centennial of His Birth

Tom Curran A week and a half ago, the Law School held our annual Alumni Awards Reception and Conferral—always a highlight of our year. For it enables us to celebrate Marquette Law School’s spirit and ideals by recognizing four exemplars of the genus (or perhaps it’s the species) of the Marquette lawyer.

I had occasion that day to talk with a longtime colleague about past such alumni awards receptions and conferrals, including the one in 2007, where we honored Martin J. Greenberg, L’71, with the Charles W. Mentkowski Award for the Sports Law Alumnus of the Year; (now-Judge) Katie Maloney Perhach, L’00, with the Howard B. Eisenberg Service Award; the Hon. Patricia J. Gorence, L’77, as the Alumnus/a of the Year; and the Hon. Thomas J. Curran, L’48, with the Lifetime Achievement Award. Then, last week, my colleague noted to me that today would have been the 100th birthday of the last of these individuals (the other three, happily, still being active alumni). I relate a brief story about Judge Curran here.

I recall my commendation of him on that occasion in 2007. I said in part this:

You may think that it is his service for almost a quarter-century as United States District Judge here in Milwaukee that recommends [Tom Curran] for this award. And this is relevant, for it is a lifetime achievement award. I am inclined to think, though, that Tom Curran would be receiving this award even if he had never become Judge Curran, for his accomplishments from 1948 to 1983 would have sufficed.

Tom Curran joined his brothers’ law firm in Mauston, Wisconsin, in 1948, and for a brief moment—a year or so—the firm was Curran, Curran & Curran. That did not last, not I am sure because of any difficulty on the part of Irish brothers in getting along with one another, but because one of his brothers left in 1950 to become a circuit judge in Juneau County, where he served for the next 30 years. The firm flourished nonetheless, and today it is one of the largest firms in the state outside of a major metropolitan area (with apologies to the many Currans and others here today from Mauston for my characterization).

Of course, the fact that there are several Currans at the firm still (Judge Curran’s children) does contribute to the numbers somewhat, but you cannot maintain a firm of this size—or even stay in business for so long—without developing a reputation for quality and trustworthiness, and the Curran firm surely has that reputation. And much of that reputation developed during Tom Curran’s 35 years of practice in Mauston.

His own stature as a lawyer meant that Tom Curran was elected by his statewide peers to the presidency of the State Bar of Wisconsin, a signal honor.

I said more, but let me move the story along. I also recall a portion of Judge Curran’s remarks in then accepting the Lifetime Achievement Award:

Given the very special place Marquette already had in the lives of the Currans, it was no surprise, when I was discharged from the Navy in July 1946, that I would come up and enroll at Marquette. And I found myself, four days later, sitting in a classroom, as we then had the three-semester-a-year program, given that probably 95 percent of us were veterans. I would guess that we ranged in rank from a private to a brigadier general—a former brigadier general. The only problem was that the general had trouble remembering the “former” part of it—or at least he did, for maybe two or three weeks, until he ended up in Professor Ghiardi’s class.

Finally, I recall but, alas, cannot directly quote the moment in his acceptance remarks—not scripted, I should think—where Judge Curran turned around from the podium and looked back at Rev. Robert A. Wild, S.J., then the president of Marquette University, and me.

Judge Curran noted the coincidence of two guys from the South Side of Chicago leading a beloved Wisconsin institution, and his remarks were most generous. This was characteristic of Judge Curran, in my experience: he made that moment not about himself but about others—and about Marquette.

I have never forgotten it or him. It is pleasant to remember a generous and gracious Marquette lawyer and judge both on his 100th birthday and on other occasions.

Continue ReadingRemembering a Marquette Lawyer (and Judge) on the Centennial of His Birth

The Stakes in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the first non-software fair use case the court has heard since 1994. This has copyright lawyers aflutter, as fair use law has been in increasing disarray for the last 20 years or so, and there is hope that finally the Supreme Court will give lower courts much-needed guidance. Unfortunately, I think the probability is higher of a mush-filled disaster of an opinion, like the one in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands (2017), that not only gives no guidance, but eliminates the few stable boundaries we have.

That’s because fair use doctrine is a poor fit for the way modern courts operate, and there is probably little the Court can do to fix that, but a lot it can do to make the problem worse. But before I get there, I want to lay out in this post what’s at stake in AWF.

The case involves a licensing deal between celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith and Vanity Fair magazine.

Continue ReadingThe Stakes in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith
Newer Posts
Older Posts