Same-sex marriage at U.S. Supreme Court: plaintiffs nervous but proud

A birth certificate and a death certificate. Those legal documents that mark the beginning and the end of a life have led a group of Americans to the highest court in their land, a journey they never anticipated taking and one that is set to make history.

Their fights over whose names belong on those documents are part of the same-sex marriage issue that will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

• Indiana lawmakers unveil changes to religious objections law

It's a day that many, on both sides of the debate, have been waiting for after years of battles waged in lower courts that have seen bans on same-sex marriage both upheld and struck down.

The court is hearing four different cases — from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky — and it will answer two crucial questions:

• Does the constitution require states to licence marriages between two people of the same sex?
• Does the constitution require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage legally performed elsewhere?

The "marriage question" and the "recognition question" will be dealt with in two parts of the 2½-hour hearing. Taken together, the cases are referred to as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is how the matter will go down in the history books.

"I'm starting to get nervous," the Cincinnati man for whom the case is known, Jim Obergefell, said in an interview last week.

"This isn't something I ever thought I would be experiencing, and so I'm excited, but I'm proud to be doing this, because I'm just standing up for my husband and standing up for our marriage."

Wedding on airport tarmac

Obergefell and John Arthur were together for 20 years and wed in 2013 in Maryland, where it was legal. The venue wasn't the most romantic — it was an airport tarmac.

Arthur was suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and the couple was determined to marry before he died. Obergefell and Arthur, so sick he could barely move, flew on a medically equipped plane to Baltimore. Arthur's aunt married them inside the plane, and they flew back to Ohio.

Their honeymoon phase was short. They married in July, and Arthur, who was 48, died in October. Ohio didn't recognize their marriage as a valid one and therefore tried to block Obergrefell from being designated the surviving spouse.

"To be told that we wouldn't exist in that way, on the last official record of John's life, it was heartbreaking and it was offensive," he said. He sued.

Another plaintiff from Ohio, David Michener, faced the same roadblock when his husband, William Ives, died.

They had also had a short honeymoon period. They married in Delaware in July 2013, and Ives unexpectedly died of natural causes one month later. He was 54. Michener sought to be identified as the surviving spouse on the death certificate, so he could authorize his husband's cremation.

While Obergefell and Michener were waging legal battles over certificates of death, other Ohioans were fighting for one announcing a new life. Kelly Noe and her wife Kelly McCracken had their daughter Ruby in June 2014, and both want to be on the birth certificate.

Birth and death certificates aren't just meaningful on a personal level. There are a host of legal implications that derive from them. Noe said their fight was simply about protecting their daughter and the other spouse if something happened to one of them.

Feeling the pressure

"I don't really feel like the state recognizing our marriage is going to discredit anyone else or harm anyone else or put anyone else's family or marriage or children in danger in any way," Noe said in an interview.

She is steeling herself for Tuesday, knowing there are plenty of people who disagree with that view who will be at the court.

"We're expecting it, but it's hurtful, and it's kind of demeaning to us, because we try really hard to be the best moms that we can be and to raise Ruby the way that we were raised, to teach her those values that we think are important as a family," she said.

Noe said she is anxious about the hearing and finds it all somewhat "terrifying." She is also feeling a lot of pressure. Their case is among those that prompted the Supreme Court to weigh in on an issue that has been dividing the U.S. for years.

"I kind of feel this heavy weight on my shoulders, because if everything goes wonderfully and the court rules in our favour, then that's still kind of a nice, but a heavy weight to bear," said Noe.

"But then I can't help but feel sorry for the states where it is legal, because if the court makes a ruling that changes laws in those states, boy, that will be even heavier."

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in 36 states and in the District of Columbia. Public opinion polls indicate growing support for it, but Noe and Obergefeller know that won't matter when it comes to how the justices make their decision. This all comes down to the U.S. Constitution and how it is interpreted.

"I absolutely feel like the country is on our side and that the country is ready for marriage equality," said Obergefeller.

"I'm optimistic, but I also know that that doesn't mean anything, and that what seems absolutely logical to me doesn't matter when it comes to the law and how the Supreme Court will react."

He said he never thought he'd see the day that he could get married, let alone see a Supreme Court case that could make it legal across the U.S. For Obergefeller, being part of the fight has helped with his grief. 

"It keeps John alive," he said. "It's really just my way of living up to the promises I made to him: to love him, honour him and protect him."

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in June.