>> Jim Obergefell: I was --
Bridget Koontz, that was the
very first hearing on our case.
You know, we got married on a
Thursday, and by virtue of friends,
connecting us with a friend
of theirs who's a civil
rights attorney.
We met that attorney on
Tuesday; we filed suit on Friday.
So we filed suit eight
days after we got married.
And on Monday, 11 days
after we got married,
I was in Federal District Court,
and that was when Bridget
Koontz was defending the state
against our lawsuit.
And I remember in that
courtroom thinking,
"Her heart doesn't
quite seem in it."
[Laughter] And I honestly
thought, "So I wonder,
was she the last person in
the office this morning?"
[Laughter] And the decision was,
"Last in the office
has to go to court."
So it was -- for me it was
really fun to learn that I picked
up on something that she
felt she was conflicted.
She was doing her job, and I respect
her for that; and she did her best,
she did her job to fight
for the state of Ohio,
but it was really kind
of nice to learn
that she was personally
conflicted, and was on our side.
And I have to say the other
great thing that happened
in that very first
hearing, when we filed suit,
we filed suit against the state of
Ohio and the city of Cincinnati.
And in that very first hearing,
the city solicitor for the city
of Cincinnati stood up in court and
said -- and I'm paraphrasing this,
"Your Honor, the city of
Cincinnati agrees with John and Jim.
Their marriage deserves
to be recognized."
And for me that was one of the
most powerful experiences I had had
because, you know, for years,
Cincinnati was considered the most
gay unfriendly city in the country,
and to have the city stand up in
court and say, "We're on your side,"
that was an amazing thing.
So I was in court for that.
When Al started a second lawsuit
about birth certificates,
I was in their hearing.
I was in every single court
hearing that I could attend.
>> Travis Painter: And do you feel
that support and that conviction,
and at what point did you
stop feeling that conviction
from other attorneys or the judges
behind the bench was like, "Oh,
this is not as welcoming
as we first felt."
Is there a point you remember
specifically about that?
>> Jim Obergefell: Well, that
was certainly when we ended
up at the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
So we won in Federal District Court,
and the judge issued a temporary
restraining order, which said Ohio,
when John dies, you have to fill
out his death certificate correctly.
You have to recognize
their marriage."
And it was a temporary order,
so the state could not appeal.
John died three months later, and
his death certificate was accurate.
Two months after that, the
judge made that order permanent,
and at that point,
the state appealed.
Now, at that point, the Sixth
Circuit consolidated our case,
along with the birth certificate
case our attorney Al was leading,
as well as four cases from
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan.
So there were six cases total, and
we went to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals, which right from
the start, Al our attorney said,
"I'm just forewarning you this is
considered the most conservative
appeals court in the country."
So we went into that
feeling a little uncertain,
and they ruled against.
And it was a two-to-one --
it was a three-judge panel,
and it was a two-to-one
ruling against us.
So that was the moment
when I thought, "Hmm, okay,
this isn't going as
well as I'd hoped."
But it was also the moment when
I could have, you know, decided,
"I need to take a step back.
I want to go back to my life.
John's been gone for about a
month now -- for about a year now,
and I just want to go
back to being quiet Jim,
not being in the midst
of everything."
But I realized I couldn't do it.
I still hadn't lived up
to my promises to John.
So that was the low point for
me, but it was also the point
when suddenly, there
was the silver lining.
The First Appeals Court ruled
against marriage equality;
we now had a split.
So the hope was, "Maybe now the
Supreme Court will take it."
>> Debbie Cenziper: One of the most
compelling characters, I think,
in the book is Judge
Daughtrey, who was a female judge
on the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeal, Martha Daughtrey,
who was the one judge who
supported marriage equality
of the three-judge panel.
She was on the side
of marriage equality.
And there's a great
scene in the book
of Judge Daughtrey
describing how she tried
to convince these two more
conservative judges right
after oral arguments in
the Sixth Circuit to rule
on the side of marriage equality.
She said something like -- to
Judge Jeff Sutton, "But Jeff,
these two men were in love."
And unfortunately, she lost vote.
And her opinion was, of course,
right around the world it
was a scathing opinion.
But in the book, she compares
this fight for marriage equality
to the fight to gain the right --
you know, to vote, women's rights,
and in fact has a first-edition
copy of Susan B. Anthony's book
on the history of women's
suffrage in her office.
So we were very lucky
to get her to --
a sitting federal judge
to come talk on the record
about how she felt about this case.
>> Travis Painter: That's great.
Jim, throughout the writing
and working with Debbie,
can you talk to the process of that,
and were there intimate moments
of your life, things that
you felt were private,
or things that were coming out
that were needing to be shared
in the writing of the book?
>> Jim Obergefell: Oh, absolutely.
I can say without hesitation
that writing this book,
but also having the opportunity
to be involved in this case
and to fight for this, and to
speak about it, all of it combined,
it gave me the opportunity
to keep talking about John,
and to keep him foremost in my mind.
It kept him alive, and it helped
my grieving process in a great way.
And Debbie has this incredible way
of pulling details out of my head.
My memory's always been one of
the forest, not of the trees.
So she would ask me questions
and ask for memories,
and it was always the
broader strokes.
It wasn't the details.
And she would keep pushing
me, "So Jim, what color shirt?
What was the weather like?
What was happening in Cincinnati?
>> Debbie Cenziper:
"What were you eating?"
>> Jim Obergefell:
What were you eating?"
>> Debbie Cenziper: Yes.
>> Jim Obergefell: And she just had
this incredible way of pushing me
and making me actually dig deeper
and pull out those details,
which I would have forgotten,
and didn't realize were there.
So working on the book was
a really good experience
because it was healing,
it was therapeutic,
and I got to relive a lot
of really good things.
I shed a lot of tears, but
they were healing tears,
and it was really great.
So it was this constant back and
forth of conversations, memories,
writing, how's this, change this,
how's that, change that, love that,
keep that, add this, and it was
just a really good experience.
And for me, the fact
that I did know Debbie,
and it was this phenomenally
successful journalist asking me
if I wanted to help write a
book about my life about my life
with John, it was this sense of
comfort that I felt with her,
comfort and safety because
she wasn't a stranger.
So it was a really good experience.
>> Debbie Cenziper: I had to take
Jim back about 40-some years,
but I had to take out [inaudible],
his civil rights lawyer,
who was a main character in the
book back about 60-some years.
So he, you know, described
to me his life growing
up on a chicken farm
outside of Cleveland in this,
you know, rural community.
And his father, you
know, tended to thousands
of chickens in this Amish community.
And he got a full ride
to law school at NYU,
and could have gone on anywhere.
His friends went onto big-name law
firms, but he wanted to go back
to Cincinnati to be a
civil rights lawyer.
And he made, you know, money,
and he bought a house, you know,
with this small inheritance.
And he's still living
in that same house.
So, you know, Al's career
as a civil rights lawyer --
I've met a lot of lawyers
as a journalist,
and he is truly an inspiring man.
I mean, he's just -- he's
scrappy, and he's always rumpled,
and his tie's all messed up, and
his hair is blowing every which way.
[Laughter] And his office has
green carpet from the 1970s.
[Laughter] And, you know, he's just
-- but he's just a true believer.
And I was really moved by him,
so much so that I've told
my younger son I want him
to be a civil rights
lawyer when he grows up.
[Laughter]
>> Jim Obergefell: Yes; I mean
I can't say enough good things
about Al.
I really think if any other attorney
had knocked on our door five days
after our wedding, I'm not
sure we would have done this.
But Al is just -- as Debbie
said, he is this true believer
about civil rights and
fighting for people.
And throughout the entire two years,
he never lost sight of the fact
that there were real
people at the heart of this,
real people with a real story,
real people who were being
harmed, and he fought.
I mean, you'll learn in
the book, he got pushback
from national organizations saying,
"This is not the right lawsuit.
This is not the right time for this.
We don't think you
should be doing this."
And Al's reply was always --
>> Debbie Cenziper:
"I have clients."
>> Jim Obergefell: "I have
clients who are being harmed.
This is absolutely the
right thing to do."
And he is just this incredibly
intelligent, dedicated, kind man.
And --
>> Debbie Cenziper: He had spent
35 years fighting for the rights
of women, and children,
and the gay community,
because his younger brother
is gay and had taken on a case
against a Catholic high school
back in the '80s, and lost.
And then he took on the city of
Cincinnati in the early 1990s,
because the city had passed --
had embedded in its charter a law
that said you couldn't protect
the gay community with any kind
of antidiscrimination laws.
And he spent five years personally
trying to take that law down,
without pay; I mean, almost lost
his shirt, almost left the practice
of law, took the case all the way
to the US Supreme Court and lost.
And so this case was in some
ways redemption, I think, for Al.
And it brought him back to the
Supreme Court a second time.
And as you know, arguing in front
of the Supreme Court is a
make-or-break, you know,
moment for lawyers in
their legal careers.
And Al stepped down and decided
not to be the oralist in this case,
because there was a more experienced
oralist and a brilliant oralist here
in DC who he felt would
do a better job.
That's how committed Al was.
He actually stepped down and didn't
argue the case because he wanted
to do right by his clients.
>> Travis Painter: Wow.
And Debbie, what was
your involvement
with the LGBT community before
writing, during writing,
and now a year after
the case, book just came
out two weeks ago, a week ago?
>> Debbie Cenziper: Two week, yes.
>> Travis Painter: Two weeks ago.
>> Debbie Cenziper: Yes.
I mean, I was not involved.
I was really an outsider looking
into the politics of gay rights.
I mean, obviously, I knew and
supported marriage equality,
but I had never really
looked into it.
I mean, you know, I don't write
about those kinds of issues.
But when I heard about this case,
like I think so many other people,
I was so moved by the practical
problems that couples faced.
The fact that John could not get
an accurate death certificate,
and Jim was not listed
as the surviving spouse
seemed outrageous to me.
As an outsider looking
in, it seemed punitive.
And beyond that, there
were parents in this case
who couldn't get accurate birth
certificates for their children.
So here they have done to
the trouble of adopting,
or having children, you know,
through in vitro and in other ways,
all they want is to protect
their families; all they want is
to protect their children.
And they fact that they couldn't
get a birth certificate as a parent,
I just couldn't believe that.
And I think that that was why
this case in some ways spoke
to so many people, because the
lawyers and the plaintiffs were able
to show that there were
practical technical problems
that same-sex couples faced.
The rest of us may not
have even known about it.
>> Travis Painter: And Jim.
>> Jim Obergefell: Well, you know,
from my perspective, Debbie says,
you know, "I was an outsider looking
in," and I've noticed a change
in her in our book events, and
she talks about how, you know,
this case, this writing
this book opened her eyes
to those very practical daily ways
in which we were being harmed.
And I think one of my favorite
things I've heard you say, Debbie,
is that someone asked you,
you know, "What's next for you
in your professional career?"
And I love that you
said, "Well, you know,
I've spent my career mostly
writing about bad people,
and now that I've written
about this, I think I want
to keep writing about
more good things.
I want -- I'm not so concerned
about writing about bad people now."
And I thought, "What
a lovely thing --
lovely effect for this
process to have had on you
to realize you get a lot more --
you get more out of that than
you had been getting, perhaps,
out of writing about
bad people," so --
>> Debbie Cenziper:
Yes; and I think too --
exactly, but I think this is a book
that's about underdogs, really.
It's like a David and Goliath story.
It's about ordinary people who
stepped out of their private lives
to protect their families, and
the people they care most about.
And then they ultimately
started advocating, you know,
for the larger gay community.
And, you know, I love
those kinds of stories.
You know, I mean, it's geeky.
But as I was writing the book,
like I hear like the "Rocky" theme
in my head, [laughter] and
he's climbing up the steps.
Because these stories
really are inspiring.
If you read the book, you'll see
these parents and what they did.
Do you know after the state of
Ohio was forced by a federal judge
to give these parents
accurate birth certificates,
the state was appealing
to the Sixth Circuit,
so they gave them birth certificates
with asterisks on the bottom
that said, you know,
"Pending the outcome
of the Sixth Circuit,"
or something like that.
Even then, they couldn't get -- all
they want is a birth certificate,
and who does that really affect?
It's just -- they're kids, they're
just trying to protect them.
And so yes, I mean, this
is a story about underdogs,
and I've always been moved
by stories like that.
>> Travis Painter: Okay.
Okay; because now your audience --
you've had quite an
exposure to LGBT community.
And it's maybe even broader for both
of you our alphabet
soup of LGBT/QIAA.
How do you feel about
that community as a whole?
What are we doing to address
issues across the board?
What role, Jim, as an activist,
now the face of an entire movement,
how do you feel we're addressing
the community as a whole?
Are we doing enough?
>> Jim Obergefell: I think
we can always do more.
You know, I -- for me personally,
over the past two years,
it's been an important thing
for me to make sure I talk
about our transgender siblings.
And I know there's
more to our community
that I should be talking about,
or I could be talking about.
But for me over the past couple of
years, you know, marriage equality,
I knew there would be backlash.
But the backlash has been so vicious
against our transgendered siblings,
that it's been a point for
me to make to always talk
about our transgender community.
And I also talk about how, you
know, stories change lives.
And I think this book, it's
nothing but a story of love.
It's John's and my love, it's
the love of the other plaintiffs
for their spouses, their
partners, their children.
And stories do change
hearts and minds.
And I think about my own experience
within the LGBTQ community.
You know, up until a little
over year ago, I had no friends
who were part of the
transgender community,
at least none that
I specifically knew.
And over the past 14,
15 months, I've --
lucky enough now to say that I have
quite a few transgender friends.
And I realize the change that has
made in me, in my understanding,
in my attitudes, my outlook.
And for me that's what this
community is all about,
it's sharing our stories, and it's
making sure we share the stories
of everyone who's part
of the community,
because that's how we change
people's perspectives.
I mean, that happened
to me personally.
I had a friend of mine from 1989,
I've known her that long, she said,
"You know, Jim, watching you --
having met John, having seen your
relationship and watching you fight
for John, fight for your marriage,
and everything you've done,"
she said, "you have changed my
opinion on marriage equality."
So stories are what change the
countries; change the world.
And for our community, that's
what we have to keep doing.
We have to tell each
other's stories.
And for me that's been
telling stories
about my transgender friends,
and how important that is,
and how that affects
change in our country.
So there's a lot of
work to do, absolutely,
and unfortunately sometimes parts
of our community fall
through the cracks.
And we have to make sure that
we don't let that happen.
>> Travis Painter: Debbie, anything?
>> Debbie Cenziper: I think
he -- I think Jim answered it.
>> Travis Painter:
I know [inaudible].
>> Debbie Cenziper: Yes.
[Laughter]
>> Jim Obergefell:
So in the same vein,
yesterday marked the
47th anniversary
since the Stonewall Riots began.
We have one year since the
Obergefell V. Hodges case.
And --
I'm trying to see what's
for the next --
what do we do we tell the next
generation of LGBT community?
I know a lot of -- we call
the it the "Pride Parade",
when historically it
was the Pride March
because this was a
march outside to riot
out of city-sanctioned
harassment from police at Stonewall
with that just becoming
a national monument.
And what's next for
the LGBT community?
>> Jim Obergefell: I
think what you're seeing
within the community is
more of a concentration,
more of an effort to
preserve our history.
And the fact that Stonewall was
just named a national monument,
that is a huge part of that.
But it's on all of our shoulders to
make sure the younger generation,
the people who come after us, know
what we went through, and understand
that things weren't always
as good as they are today.
There have been people -- so
many people have come before us.
I mean, I know personally, I
wouldn't be where I am if I weren't
for my heroes, ED Windsor, Harvey
Milk, Frank Kameny, so many others.
And if it weren't for the people who
really put their lives on the line,
and risked everything to fight
for equality and dignity,
I certainly wouldn't be here.
I wouldn't have had the luxury of
finding myself in that position.
And that's what we have to make sure
our future generations don't forget,
is that it might be
great right now for you,
but remember who came
before what happened before.
And also we have to make sure
that people understand
we can go backwards.
I mean unfortunately, in so many
ways in our nation's history,
when we have those steps
forward, fortunately,
we often have steps backward.
And we have to make sure that
people understand that and fight
to keep the progress we've made,
and to keep moving forward instead
of allowing us to move backwards.
So for me, it's all about education.
I mean, I think in so many ways,
that's what it comes down to,
we have to educate others who
don't know the LGBTQ community,
and we have to educate those
of us in our community.
>> Travis Painter: We have such
an acknowledgement and recognition
for the LGBTQ community,
what they have been through
and faced throughout so much,
AIDS epidemic, Stonewall,
so much of the current generation,
myself included, that wasn't a part
of our -- wasn't a part
of my everyday life.
And it wasn't until, as Roberta
had spoke on the unfortunate events
of Orlando, that it was
then again brought back
to the forefront of we're not done.
We haven't achieved everything.
And so that was -- I wanted to hear
your activist perspective on that.
And how about from a journalist
standpoint, what have you seen
in the media shifts, changes?
>> Debbie Cenziper: Well, I think,
you know, one year ago support
for marriage equality
was overwhelming.
Public -- all the polls in the CNN
and in the Washington Post showed
the majority of Americans believed
in marriage equality and support,
and loved the LGBT
community; and then Orlando.
And it definitely seems like
one step forward, one step back.
And, you know, I think civil
rights movements in general,
that's kind of often the way it
plays out, whether it's, you know,
civil rights, or women's
rights, that kind of thing.
And I think Orlando was --
unfortunately shows that in --
there are people in the
public, and perhaps even people
in public office, who still
don't support the gay community.
It was a hate crime.
>> Jim Obergefell: And I know for
me, Orlando, one of the things
that I wasn't expecting personally,
you know, it was a reminder,
and it was also a moment when I
felt something I'd never felt before
in my out gay life.
You know, I've been out since I
was 26, and I can honestly say
in that time, never once have
I felt unsafe, threatened,
and I've never felt the direct
recipient of discrimination.
Maybe I've been ignorant,
maybe I've been clueless.
I can be fairly clueless
at times, so --
but that day, I suddenly
felt afraid.
And for me, that was I think a
much needed reminder that I can --
I'm fortunate in my life and
I haven't felt afraid before.
And that was a remind that, "You
know what, Jim, there are kids
out there every day
who are that afraid.
Our transgender family everyday
they're living their lives
that afraid."
And for me it was a
necessary reminder
that no matter how
good my life might be,
it can change in an instant,
and there's still a lot
of hatred out there.
And that's one of the those
things I think Orlando has served
as a wakeup call and a reminder
to many of us in the community
that no matter how
good things might seem,
we still have a lot
-- a long way to go.
>> Travis Painter: I think that's
an awesome charge for all of us.
And just want to take some
questions from the audience
if anybody had been thinking
about something that you would
like to ask one or both of them.
I'll probably just
give you this mic.
So if you don't mind to come
up, that way we can make sure --
this is being recorded, so make
sure that we get it captured.
There was one in the back.
Come up, please.
If possible.
Sorry, I know there's
technology in the way.
[ Background Talking ]
>> Hi. Thanks for being here.
I was curious about sort of the
resistances that you got from some
of the, I guess, you know,
big groups that said, "Oh no,
your case is not the
right case," and all that,
and how you sort just
persisted through that,
kind of what persistence you
got, your reaction to that, so --
>> Jim Obergefell: Well, I can say
that resistance was all directed
towards Al, our attorney,
and other attorneys on the case.
Al did a phenomenal job, and
the other attorneys did as well,
of keeping us the focus of it,
but also keeping us out of a lot
of the things that we
didn't need to worry about.
So that pushback was
directed towards Al.
So once our case came out, shortly
thereafter the ACLU joined our case.
And then when he did the
birth certificate case,
[inaudible] joined that case.
And there was quite a bit of
pushback saying, "You know,
this doesn't fit within our strategy
that we had for marriage equality,
and this isn't the
right thing to do."
And we only knew about
it after the fact.
And Al simply said,
"No; I have to do this.
I have clients who are being harmed.
This is the absolute
right thing to do."
And he just kept pushing, and kept
talking, and kept talking about us.
And he brought them
all over to his side.
And from that point on, I personally
never, ever felt any pushback
from any of those national
organizations.
They were a very cohesive
team of attorneys
and experts working on our behalf.
So I thank Al for that.
He really kept us out of that.
He made it all about us.
>> Debbie Cenziper: It wasn't also
-- it was Al, he was the head, head.
But all of the attorneys in all of
the four states faced this pushback,
to the point where they actually
asked some of the national groups
for a funding to support expert
witnesses, or other things
that lawyers have to pay for.
Remember, they were working with
no pay, and they couldn't get it
in the beginning, because the
national groups, perhaps rightly so,
were worried about the Sixth
Circuit, you know, saying no.
In fact, one of the attorneys
in Michigan actually sold
her house to fund this case.
She was that determined
to keep going.
I mean, these are lawyers --
Al had been in business 30-some
years, he could afford it.
But the other lawyers,
I mean, they just --
they did all kinds of things
to come up with the money,
because they basically
worked for free
for the better part of
two-and-a-half years.
>> Travis Painter:
Thank you so much.
Anyone else?
>> Jim Obergefell: Oh, come on.
Oh, there's one.
>> Travis Painter: Please.
Mr. Bob.
I will say, this is our first chair
of LC Globe, [laughter and applause]
as our first chair, so set up our
organization globe 20 years ago?
You're welcome.
>> Twenty-five.
>> Travis Painter:
Twenty-five years ago.
[Laughter]
[ Inaudible Comment ]
Here you go.
>> Not quite 25.
I was just wondering about the oral
arguments at the Supreme Court.
Now, we know that we
can't always predict
from oral arguments how the
justices are going to rule,
because there are all these
briefs that get filed,
and there's all this -- a lot of
work that goes on behind the scenes.
But I'm wondering what your
impressions were during the oral
arguments, if there was ever
a time when you felt, "Wow,
this is going really well," or, "Oh,
my God, this is not looking good?"
>> Jim Obergefell: You
know, during oral arguments,
I really tried hard not to let
myself wander too much down pathways
or avenues of thought, because
I know I'm not smart enough,
I'm not an attorney, I don't
know the justices well enough
to have put any thought into, "Well,
that justice has this question,
so that means X, versus they ask
that question, that means Y."
I wouldn't let myself do that.
So I spent my time in oral
arguments just writing notes
about what was asked, what was said.
And I really tried hard
not to think too hard.
Now, I did leave that day thinking,
"I think we're going to win."
How much of that was what I actually
got out of the oral arguments,
versus how much of that was just
me knowing I was on the right side
and being an optimist, I'm not sure.
But I did leave feeling
pretty optimistic.
And as far as the oral arguments,
the things I remember was when --
you know, the whole
argument around, "Well,
why are we changing the meaning
of something that's meant the same
thing for millennia, marriage?
It's meant the same thing
for all of these years.
Why are we changing it?"
And it was RBG, wasn't it?
RBG said, "Well, no, I disagree.
We have actually changed
the meaning of marriage,
because women are no
longer considered property
of their husbands."
[Laughter] That was one
of my favorite moments.
And another one was -- and
this was during the arguments
for the right to marry.
And I forget who it was, but it
was, again, back to, you know,
why are we changing this?
And if we think back to the ancient
Greek civilization, you know,
we know that same-sex relations
were okay, because we can read
about that, and we
know that it was part
of their culture, it was accepted.
But they didn't have same-sex
marriage, at least not from anything
that we've been able to tell.
Well, why do you think that is?
And Mary Bonauto just
pointblank, "Well, Your Honor,
I'm in no position to even consider
what ancient Greek philosophers
believed or thought."
It was just this really ridiculous
point of, "Well, ancient Greek,
they didn't, so why should we?"
And well -- [laughter] and
Mary's response was, "Well,
how am I supposed to
know what they thought,
or what their feelings were?"
I just thought it was
a great response.
>> Debbie Cenziper:
But the beautiful thing
about that is what the
justices didn't know is
that she had studied
the classics in college.
[Laughter] So she was actually
prepared to answer those questions.
She wasn't expecting them, but
she was prepared to answer them.
Because I think -- I remember
Al Gerhardstein, there's a scene
in the book where he said he
was kind of holding this breath
because he was not expecting
the ancient Greece questions,
"Are we really going back that far?"
[Laughter] And Mary Bonauto is
this brilliant lawyer, and --
but had never argued
before the Supreme Court.
But she was prepared.
She studied the classics,
and she handled it.
But I think to answer your question,
too -- and Jim can talk about this,
everybody was listening to Justice
Kennedy, because, of course,
we all thought he was
the swing vote.
So every question was analyzed,
and which way is he going to go?
And, you know, the room kind of
quieted down when he spoke up.
>> Jim Obergefell: Yes.
And my absolute favorite moment
of the entire two-and-a-half
hours was in the last few minutes.
And the second part
of the two-and-a-half
hours were the arguments
for the right to recognition.
And Douglass Hallward-Driemeier,
who was arguing,
he was doing his closing.
And during his closing, as I've
mentioned, every single attorney
on that team kept the
plaintiffs front and center.
They always brought it back to us.
They always brought it back to the
fact that these are real people;
these are people being harmed.
And in the last few lines
of his closing statements,
he brought it back and
talked about John and me,
and about our relationship.
And for me, that -- I loved it.
I mean, it felt like John
and I had the last word,
which was pretty powerful.
But I loved that, again,
he brought it back to us,
and he brought it back to a real
couple who suffered real harm.
And I really respect that they
did that every chance they had,
they brought it back to us.
>> Debbie Cenziper: And this
attorney is a veteran Supreme
Court oralist.
He lives here in DC, and I think
he's argued before every circuit
court in the country, and multiple
times before the Supreme Court.
And he knows not to get emotional.
I mean, he knows this is not
what the justices want to see.
But he was determined
to slip that in.
>> Jim Obergefell: Yes.
>> Debbie Cenziper: And I
was told my multiple sources
in the courtroom.
Then when we turned around
and went back to sit down,
he had tears in his eyes.
So I kind of thought
that that was, you know,
really, really sweet moment.
>> Jim Obergefell: Yes.
>> Travis Painter: That's awesome.
Did you still want to ask -- please.
>> Hi. So my question actually has
two parts, if that's all right.
>> Jim Obergefell: Of course.
>> So how did you handle, on
a personal and legal level,
the backlash that you
must have received
from religious organizations in
the country during your case?
And something that I've noticed
is that a lot of the hate crimes
that are directed towards LGBT
members of our community tends
to arise because of
their interpretation
of a particular religious text.
And so do you believe, as an
activist, that it's possible
to prevent hate crimes against
LGBT members of our community
without reforming these
religious institutions?
>> Jim Obergefell:
Ooh, good questions.
[Laughter]
>> Thank you.
>> Jim Obergefell: Wow.
Okay; so in the first one,
when I get this question,
I think it always amazes people
when I say that in almost two years
from the start of our case
to the Supreme Court ruling,
I got four pieces of mail that
were less than supportive.
That's it, four, as
opposed to thousands --
honestly it feels like millions of
cards, letters, e-mails, messages,
and people stopping me everywhere
I go to thank me, to share stories,
to tell me why this fight -- why
marriage equality meant something
to them or someone they loved.
So for me personally,
I've experienced nothing
but love and support.
And it's been an amazing
two years because of that.
You know, every single time that
happens when someone stops me
and shows me a photo, talks
about someone they love,
it's this incredible gift,
and this incredible thank-you
that the other plaintiffs
and I stood up to fight.
So personally, I've
experienced almost no backlash.
And I love that I can say that.
To me it gives me hope
for our country.
The religion part, you know,
marriage there's such this feeling
of ownership to the word
"marriage" by religions.
And I always did my best just to
reply with, "Well, you know what,
we go to a government office
for a marriage license."
It is a civil institution,
no religion is required.
I mean, any person in this
country can get married
without having a religion involved.
So I would always come back to that.
And I've never quite understood this
feeling that they owned that word,
that no one else can use it.
And do I think we will continue
to see continued hatred directed our
way, or pushback around LGBTQ rights
from a religious perspective,
absolutely.
And I think it will be a
process of religious leaders
and religious people having
that realization that, you know,
"Love thy neighbor," the
Golden Rule, "Judge not."
Those concepts seem to be forgotten.
And I think until religions really
embrace that, and live that,
and step away from focusing on one
or two lines when they don't focus
on every other line, until
those types of changes occur,
I'm afraid we will
continue to see this.
And that saddens me because,
you know, I was always taught
that religion is about
loving your neighbor
and treating them the way
you want to be treated.
So I'm hopeful one day,
maybe that will be the case,
but it will take some -- take a lot
of effort, and time, and reformation
within various churches;
various religious organizations.
>> Travis Painter: Great, thank you.
We'll end with the word "hopeful."
>> Jim Obergefell: Yes.
>> Travis Painter: [Laughs]
And before we do end,
I want to invite our current
chair of LC Globe, Nicholas Brown,
up for some closing remarks,
and some -- thank you.
[ Applause ]
[ Background Sounds ]
>> Thank you.
Hi, everyone.
Good afternoon.
First off, I just would like to
thank Jim and Debbie on behalf
on all of the LGBTQ employees here
at the Library for taking the time
out of your busy lives to share your
experiences with us, because to all
of us you are people who we
look up to as leaders; Debbie,
you for helping sort of tell
the story of what happened.
That's a remarkable feat that we
as library people really,
really appreciate that.
So thank you for your
contribution to this.
And to Jim, you're one of those
people who we will for the rest
of our lives remember having
been able to see in person,
and to witness, and to
share moments with you,
especially in this pride
month this year which has been
so difficult in so many ways.
You give us inspiration.
And your tireless commitment to
fighting for all of us is something
that we can only strive to come this
close to to matching in our lives.
So thank you, both,
for your contributions.
As that's kind of alluded to, this
is a huge day for us at the Library
of Congress, I think, in terms of
working with so many colleagues
around the Library, especially
Chief of Staff Robert Newlen,
Law Librarian of Congress Roberta
Shaffer, and various colleagues
in EEODP Roberto and Eric, and
Travis, of course, to come together
to celebrate our LGBTQ community.
We have had a long
time at the Library
of working towards
gaining more recognition,
and that is certainly happening
with the support of leaders,
such as Robert and Roberta.
So we really appreciate everything
that they're doing for us.
And we also appreciate the folks
who have taken leadership roles
in LC Globe over the
past 20-some odd years.
If you have ever been on the
LC Globe steering committee,
could you stand up for me
please, so we can recognize you?
These are the folks who
work behind the scenes
to make everything possible.
[ Applause ]
Another special thank-you goes
out to Leah from the Law Library,
who has worked very closely
with us on this event.
[ Applause ]
And before I go into some
housekeeping announcements,
I just want to share my impression
of what the Library's role is
in capturing LGBTQ history.
All of us that work here at the
Library are charged with collecting,
preserving, and serving cultural
history, and cultural memory,
regardless of what demographic,
or regardless of what topic,
what religion, what subject
area, we're here to do it all,
which is a really remarkable
charge, and it's a difficult charge.
But I think with the LGBTQ
collections, in particular,
we are doing an astonishing job,
and we're all working
to spread the word.
And part of that is on you all,
to share with your colleagues
and friends around the world how
important the Library's LGBTQ
collections are.
We have an LGBTQ portal for
Pride Month, which gives you some
of the highlights, which
is at loc.gov/lgbt.
You can go in there
to see highlights
about the Walt Whitman
papers, for example,
or Leonard Bernstein's collection,
or a vast range of American poets
who have read their work
here at the Library.
Our collections are vast.
As you know, we have
over 160 million items.
A large portion of that has
to do with LGBT culture,
and not necessarily in a
direct title, you know,
it's not "LGBT Issues in the 1970s."
However, our lives touch
all parts of society,
because we contribute
to all parts of society.
So you can go into collections
having to do with any topic,
and you can see the legacy of our
community having a major impact
on what we know today as society.
So thank you all for contributing
to that work, and for those of you
who are visiting us today,
please visit our resources
and check them out.
The Library's open to anyone.
You just need to present a
photo ID and get a reader card.
And you should be age of 16 and up.
And if you'd like to connect with
us on a more research level in terms
of cultivating LGBTQ collections,
consider joining our LGBT studies
group, which meets monthly.
And we work to kind of dig out some
of the hidden treasures relating
to our area of study, and then
promoting them to the public.
So I'll leave you with that.
And just some general announcements.
We will have book sales in the back.
The copies of Jim and Debbie's
book are going for $25 of discount.
So get them while they're hot.
And Jim and Debbie have
been kind enough to agree
to sign copies for all of you.
And also a huge thanks
to the Law Library
for arranging a light
reception for us.
So we invite you all
to join us in the back
of the room before you depart today.
And one last thing is that our final
Pride Month event is taking place
on July 6th, slightly outside of
Pride Month, but we're very filled
with pride, so we can
keep going all year.
[Laughter] And that is a really
fascinating event, featuring authors
from the Golden Crown
Literary Society,
which if you don't know
what that organization is,
it's an organization that
promotes lesbian fiction writing.
So we're going to have some really
distinguished authors come here
to the Library on July 6th.
Hope you join us for that.
It's at 11:00 am in
LM139 downstairs.
And if you're interested in joining
us in more social capacities,
check out our Facebook group,
facebook.com/group/lcglobe.
There are things like
parade pictures,
invites to happy hours,
and that kind of thing.
So again, thank you to Debbie
and Jim, and also Travis
for moderating today, and to
Robert and Roberta, and Leah.
And thank you for being here.
>> This has been a presentation
of the Library of Congress.
Visit us at loc.gov.