June 20, 2025 • 33 mins
A decade ago, two Michigan nurses embarked on a journey that would transform American history – not in hopes of a constitutional revolution, but because they wanted to protect their children.
April DeBoer and Jane Rowse had been together for 18 years when they first approached attorney Dana Nessel about a seemingly simple problem. As Michigan foster parents raising three children, they faced a legal paradox: the state trusted them to foster children together but prohibited them from jointly adopting. Each parent could only legally adopt specific children, creating a precarious situation where neither had legal rights to all their children.
After surviving a near-fatal car accident, the reality hit them hard – if something happened to either mother, their family could be torn apart by the legal system they trusted to protect them. What began as an adoption rights case unexpectedly pivoted when a federal judge suggested they challenge Michigan's marriage ban instead. This fateful turn transformed their personal struggle into what would become the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
April and Jayne invite listeners into the emotional Supreme Court experience – from the sea of supporters outside, to the confusing oral arguments where Justice Kennedy's position remained unclear, to the euphoric moment when they learned they'd won. With remarkable candor, they share how they balanced raising five children while becoming reluctant civil rights pioneers, and how they found courage in looking at "those tiny faces" they were fighting to protect.
As we mark ten years since Obergefell, their story offers both inspiration and warning. While reflecting on how quickly attitudes have changed, these accidental figureheads also express concern about how easily these LGBTQ rights and protections could disappear. Their powerful testimony reminds us that behind every landmark legal decision are real families with everything at stake – and that ordinary citizens stepping up for their children can indeed change history.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hello and welcome back to the second installment
of our special Pride Monthretrospective celebrating the
10-year anniversary ofObergefell v Hodges landmark
Supreme Court case, whichlegalized same-sex marriage and
adoption rights all across theUnited States.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
I'm Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
And I'm Arizona Attorney GeneralChris Mays, and if you, were
not able to catch part one ofthis riveting episode, we'd
recommend pausing now andlistening to that one first.
Let's get started, and I willjust say this personally,
(00:54):
because this is the story ofApril and Jane, but it's my
story too.
You know, I met my wife workingon this case.
I met her at a local library.
They were having a Democraticclub meeting which I had never
been to before.
It was my first Dem clubmeeting and I was desperately
because we couldn't get fundingto support the litigation, which
(01:17):
had become very expensive, andit was hard for the attorneys
ourselves to have to eat allthose costs.
And so I started going to somedifferent Dem clubs, including
in my own hometown, where Ididn't even know they had a Dem
club and my mother-in-law wasthe president of the Dem club.
And I met her daughter, whobegan working on helping us
(01:40):
raise money and then puttogether a nonprofit to
subsidize the cost of the case.
Wow.
Then she started working on thecase and became our project
manager to put all the exhibitsand everything together for
trial and the PowerPoint and allthe rest.
We got engaged.
I proposed to her on the stepsof the Supreme court, following
our argument, and then we gotkidding, really following your
(02:03):
argument, wow, right after thearguments, and I said, if that's
so romantic, yes, if five ofthe nine justices of this
Supreme court agree, will you beapplicant number two on my
application for a marriagelicense in the state of Michigan
.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Those were oh my God.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, that was my proposal to her.
Literally, that was it.
That was it.
She was very romantic, romantic, uh.
She accepted in a weird sort ofway.
Yeah, hi, you guys, thank youso much for uh joining us, and I
(02:47):
know it's been a little bitsince we've seen each other.
But, april and jane, this is agchris mays, from arizona, and,
as you probably know, now wehave a podcast together and I'm
so excited that you guys couldjoin us today to talk about the
10-year anniversary ofobergeveld, slasher v, snyder,
deboer, which is what it reallyshould be called.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Yes, exactly, we've been talking, dana and I have
been talking, and she gave methe full procedural history and
how it really should have beencalled something else.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Yes, Absolutely, and again, no offense to him.
But in our household we referto Jim Obergefell as an accident
of history because we stillbelieve the case should be
called DeBoer v Snyder.
And I actually have a coffeemug from the Supreme Court that
has all the most impactful casesand I have it like duct taped
out and I have written DeBoer vSnyder over Obergefell.
(03:42):
That's great.
Just just to back up, you guyshave five children together.
We do, yes.
Do you want to tell AG Mays andour listeners a little bit
about how you guys formed yourfamily?
Speaker 6 (03:56):
Oh sure.
So Jane and I adopted all fiveof our children.
So initially Nolan came to usfirst, and here in the state of
Michigan we were not allowed toadopt the children together.
So Nolan was adopted initiallyby Jane, and then we had Ryan
(04:20):
come into our house and to ourlife and she initially was
adopted by me.
And then Jacob came and Jacobwas adopted again by Jane
because I was still in theprocess of adopting Ryanne, and
so we had these three wonderfulchildren, and that's how it all
(04:44):
started.
And then we adopted two morechildren.
After the two of them, rileywas adopted again by me, and
then Kennedy came after theruling and the decision.
So she was the first and onlychild to be jointly adopted by
both of us.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
And Chris, I'm sure it's not lost on you the name of
their youngest child, Namedafter Justice Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Very interesting Okay good.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
But again, and just important to know, that April
and Jane, you guys had beentogether when you first brought
Nolan in.
For how many years had you guysbeen a couple?
Oh, that's totally you.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Jane, let's see 18.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Wow, about 18 years.
And both April and Jane were,at the time, nurses in local
hospitals in Detroit and Janewas an emergency room nurse and
April was a NICU nurse, and theyhad both been qualified by the
state to be foster care parents.
(05:52):
So they were able to bringchildren into their homes as
foster care parents, and jointlyso, but not as adoptive parents
together, which was a weirdquirk of the law that we found
to be incredibly horrible.
So I'm just with thatbackground for everybody, yeah
for sure, with that you guys.
(06:14):
I wonder if you could juststart off by telling us a little
bit about that fateful day backin.
I believe it was 2011, I think,when we first spoke and talked
about the possibility ofbringing this federal lawsuit.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
So, yeah, I think I had located you.
We had a near-miss accident,almost were killed in a car
accident, and the realizationhit that if something happened
to Jane, that the boys would endup not having a parent and I
(06:51):
personally would have no legalright to either of the boys.
Yeah, and then the realizationthat my mom, who is really the
only I shouldn't say just my mom, but my family was really the
only family that the kids hadknown because we lived in
Michigan, and Jane's family'sfrom Indiana.
(07:11):
And then it was the realizationthat Nolan, had he survived,
would have been going tosomebody that he didn't know
really at all, because theywould have the next legal right
to no one, and that just didn'tsit well with us.
And we had been seeing a bunchof advertisements and
(07:32):
information about Dana wantingto do some second documentation
for wills and all of that inchild custody for gays and
lesbians who found themselves inthis situation.
So I reached out to her and I'mlike, what can we do?
And her comment was well, wecan get this all on paper, but
(07:55):
it's only going to be worth thepaper that it's written on,
because the judges can make anydecision that they want based on
us having no legal right to ourkids, and so we went from there
to well, what else can we do?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And Dana the great plan up her sleeve.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Tell me about that great plan and what it was like
to work with her, and did sheprepare you at all or steal you
for what was ahead, what wasgoing to be this, what must have
been a roller coaster of a rideand, at the end of the day,
literally making Americanhistory.
Like what was that like workingwith her?
(08:43):
I'm just curious.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Nobody anticipated where it was going to go, that's
for sure.
Really Okay, no.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Did she tell you?
But she just told me that shehad a feeling deep down that
this thing was going to go allthe way.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
but she didn't share, that we didn't know it was
going to switch to marriage.
That was, I think that was thebig thing, was you know?
We had hoped that adoptionwould have been the key, because
that was something everybodycould get behind.
But when you know, judgeFriedman said, well, this is a
gay marriage case, we were like,oh no, that's not what this is,
(09:20):
and that was, that was thepivotal point in all this that
everybody went, oh no, what dowe do now?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
We were initially challenging the the adoption
code in.
Michigan that didn't allow forpeople who weren't married to be
able to adopt jointly.
And when we had cross motionsfor summary judgment before our
district court judge in theEastern District of Michigan, he
surprised all of us by notgranting either of the motions
(09:51):
for summary and by saying Ithink you have to amend your
pleadings.
This is not an adoption case,this is a marriage case.
You have to challenge theMichigan marriage amendment
which doesn't allow you to getmarried in the first place,
because you wouldn't have toworry about the adoption code
saying that you had to be amarried couple.
If only you could get married.
So really you should justchallenge the marriage ban.
(10:13):
And that threw all of us for alittle bit of a loop, I thought
I think is a mild way to put it.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So, so so you end up in this case case it's it's
taking these twists and theseturns and, as dana has described
earlier, uh, in the podcast,you, you all end up really kind
of getting um swept into this umcase that ends up at the
supreme court.
I mean, I don't mean to cut tothe chase or anything, but what
(10:43):
was that like?
And then tell me what it waslike when, on the day that you
that you won won the case orfound out that you'd won the
case, the way to get to theSupreme Court, or when we got
there Both both, especially whenyou got there, but both what
was, what was, what was bothlike?
Speaker 3 (11:06):
I think getting there was.
You know it's going to soundcrazy, but it wasn't hard, it
was going, you know, goingthrough things.
But once we really explainedwhy we were doing what we were
doing, most people understood.
They realized that we weren'treally out for marriage per se,
(11:27):
but it was to protect the kids.
Yeah, once that was explained,people were like, okay, I can
see why you're doing this.
Yeah, um, once we got to theSupreme Court, wow, what a
feeling that was.
That was crazy.
Like nothing I'd ever seenthere was.
You know, there was just a seaof people and the Michigan
(11:47):
contingent was huge.
Like, what we brought wasincredible.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
So you were there the day of the arguments.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Yes, we were in the court the day of the arguments
wow, what did that feel like?
Speaker 1 (12:02):
what was that like?
Speaker 6 (12:04):
well, I think, um, my , the scariest moment of that
whole thing was how they broughtinto the supreme court.
They walked us through thecrowd.
It was a little scary, but itwas just a sense of awe, like
how did we get here?
(12:25):
I mean, like we're just twoparents who want our kids to
have safeties, how are we in theSupreme Court?
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It was just crazy, it's just crazy and I guess let
me ask this question to allthree of you.
What was when you werelistening to the oral argument?
What were your thoughts?
And, Dana, like, what were youthinking?
How did you feel?
Like it was going in the moment?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Obviously, it ended up going well.
But yeah, I mean, the thing wasit was so hard to tell.
You know, as you wouldanticipate, the questions that
were asked by Justice Kagan weresemi predictable by, you know,
justice Ginsburg Also.
The questions that Alito askedwere not very favorable, as you
(13:16):
would anticipate.
But it was Kennedy that Icouldn't tell which way he was
going to go.
And here we knew that theentire case was predicated on
what Kennedy was going to domost likely.
I kind of hoped maybe there wasa chance with Roberts, but that
was an outside chance.
But it was Kennedy that we werecounting on and the way he was
(13:36):
positioning his questions Icouldn't tell one way or the
other.
And it was the first time Ithought my God, are we going to
lose this case?
Because I don't know what youguys thought, but I wasn't sure
from some of the questions thathe asked.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
You said that.
Well, marriage is differentbecause it's controlled by the
government.
But from a historical, from ananthropological standpoint,
Justice Scalia was very carefulto talk about societies.
Justice Alito talked aboutcultures.
If you read about the Kalaharipeople or ancient peoples, they
(14:11):
didn't have a government thatmade this Well, they made it
themselves, and it was man orwoman.
Part of what you see, I suppose,is to ascertain whether the
social science, the new studies,are accurate, but that it seems
to me then that we should notconsult at all the social
(14:38):
science on this because it's toonew.
You say we don't need to waitfor changes.
So it seems to me that if we'renot going to wait, then it's
only fair for us to say well,we're not going to consult
social science.
Justice Alito's question pointsout the assumption of his
hypothetical and the way thesecases are presented is that the
(15:03):
state does have a sufficientinterest so that it need not
allow the marriages in thatstate.
So there is a sufficientinterest under our arguendo
assumption here to say that thisis not a fundamental right.
But then, suddenly, if you'reout of state, why should the
(15:25):
state have to yield?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
I thought the questions were crazy.
Yeah, the questions.
We were just like where are wegoing with this?
Because to me some of themdidn't line up with what the
case was all about.
They were going down thisrabbit hole of weird questions.
Speaker 6 (15:47):
I think we left just not not knowing, like if there
was a bigger question after weleft than before we went in.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So so then the big day happens.
Well, tell me about where youwere when, when it happened, and
what, what you, what wentthrough your minds when the
decision was read.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Well, every day we waited for if the case was going
to be put up that day, andevery day it was like, oh, and
it got down to Friday, and itwas either Friday or Monday when
it was, it had to come out.
And I we had plans every day tobe in Ann Arbor.
So we were at the Jim ToyCenter in Ann Arbor and waiting,
(16:35):
yeah, hoping, hoping it wasgoing to come out, because there
were just hundreds and hundredsof people waiting.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
And media press from all across the world.
Yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So when it popped up, we were together.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
We were all together.
Ok, yeah, we were.
We were all on our edge of ourseats waiting to see if it was
going to pop up.
So when it did, then everybodyreally leaned in and waited to
hear what was going to be said,and I think it was Alana that
actually read it, and then Carolwas right behind her and it was
like, and then it was likequiet and then celebration.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Yeah, I mean nobody wants to be wrong because you're
in real time, You're reading it, while you have all these
members of the press that arereading it and you know nobody
wants to be like, oh, thatthat's the wrong interpretation
of what they just said of thissummary, but it's so.
It took us a second or twobefore we all jumped up and just
(17:35):
I mean tears of joy, yes and so, and just I mean tears of joy,
yes, and celebrate.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Oh yeah, yeah, I think it was like we won.
I think we won.
Wait, we won.
It was just, you know, jumpingaround and hugging and tears.
Speaker 6 (18:02):
And my kids were actually in a summer camp of
sorts and so my mom had takenthem over there and so somebody
had the television runninginside the building and my mom
said it was the cutest thing shesays all of a sudden she heard
there.
And my mom said it was thecutest thing she says all of a
sudden she heard there's my mom.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
So so what was the immediate?
So you have this incrediblemoment of euphoria over this
decision.
What was the immediatepractical effect of, of the
decision?
Speaker 3 (18:39):
they had to plan a wedding now we had to go out and
watch weddings.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Yeah, party first, yeah then it was yeah, yeah, oh
yeah, people got married likecrazy.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
It was great, I think we.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
We signed a couple of uh wedding certificates, I
believe as witnesses.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
yeah, you guys did remember that we signed a couple
of wedding certificates, Ibelieve, as witnesses.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, you guys did Remember that, but you
ultimately achieved what you setout to achieve.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
Correct.
If it weren't for the group ofattorneys that we had, I don't
think we would have made itwhere we were.
But yeah, we got what we wantedand what my kids needed, and
that's really the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
You know you mentioned something I don't know
if it was you, jane, or April,april.
You mentioned that that people,um, when you, when you talk to
people about, uh, the practicalimplications of being able to
adopt and and get married, theystarted to get it, they started
to support what you were doing.
Um, I guess, and and I guess myquestion is um.
(19:56):
So what's the reaction?
You know we're coming up on 10years, the 10-year anniversary
of this decision.
Has that support only grown, doyou feel like, since the
decision?
But also there's been rumblingsthat the Supreme Court might
(20:24):
overturn it.
We've had some reallydisturbing comments by at least
one, if not more, of the SupremeCourt justices about
potentially overturning it.
How do people react?
Speaker 3 (20:37):
now, I haven't had any negatives.
I don't know about you, I mean,everybody just seems to be like
had any negatives?
I don't.
I don't know about you.
I mean, everybody just seems tobe like oh, they're married,
okay, life goes on, there's nodifference.
I haven't heard any negative.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
I haven't either.
We, we have not been approachedby anybody.
There's been really no negativemedia.
No, not on our end anyway.
But again, we kind of fadedinto the background because you
know, we did our work and yes,you did.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
We were tired, but I will say this I think that April
and Jane being who they are andtheir family being who they
were, and them openingthemselves up the way that you
have to when you are theplaintiffs in a massive case, as
this one was, you know, I knowit took a toll on them and their
family, but for us, you know,for me, working on the case, I
wanted the entire world to getto know April and Jane and their
(21:39):
kids, because I knew that toknow them is to love them and to
understand that if you knowthis family, you can't otherize
them.
They are just like you.
They are your friends, they areyour neighbors, they're the.
These are the people you go towhen you have a sick family
member and you you have.
You go to the hospital or youknow this is.
These are parents who are onyour kid's field trip.
(22:01):
You know a chaperones with you.
They're exactly like you andthey just want to be treated
exactly the same.
No better, no, not inferior.
They just want to be treatedthe same as all other couples
and all other families.
And that's what April and Janedid is they brought that to
everybody and they know thatthere was not a camera that they
(22:23):
shied away from or a microphone, when I had shoved it in front
of them and said you know, makesure you're presenting your case
.
I mean, I can't do this and theother lawyers can't do this the
way that you can, to beadvocates for yourself, to show
the whole world that you're justregular people and you're just
a family that wants to berecognized as a legal family
(22:43):
with legal rights, like allother families are.
And they did just such aphenomenal job in that.
So, yes, I'd like to think thatthe lawyers on the case made
very good arguments andpresented good evidence, but it
was them as a family.
I think that ultimately led tothe success of this case.
That ultimately led to thesuccess of this case because,
whether we want to believe it ornot, I think that the Supreme
(23:05):
Court does pay attention topublic opinion.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
I think it does matter.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
And I think that they were an instrumental part
themselves, with many otherfamilies across the United
States stepping forward andsaying, instead of hiding in the
shadows, saying we are a familytoo and we deserve to have
these rights.
And they subjected themselvesto a lot in terms of the time,
the energy, the effort and alsoyou know it's a scary thing to
put yourself out there publiclylike that, but they were champs
(23:38):
and they never said no to any ofthat stuff and I think they
understood their place inhistory and they stepped up, and
but not for this.
You know normally a lot ofthese groups.
You know ECLU or, or you knowyou know Lambda Legal or all
these other groups.
You know they spend so muchtime like selecting their
(24:01):
plaintiffs right and making surethat they have people that will
present best to the courts.
And you know we didn't do anyof that.
Just April and Jane called me upone day and I heard their story
and I was so moved by it.
I just knew that that they werethe ones to really move the
(24:21):
ball forward and they were suchchamps.
I can't believe that you guyssaid yes first of all, and it
was a very difficult three and ahalf years or so.
I mean, it was not easy on them, it was not easier on their
families, but they dideverything that was asked of
them and I think they were a bigpart of this win, as well as
(24:43):
many other factors thatcoalesced at the same time, so
they deserve a lot of credit forthis.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
This is a very organic story, which is really
interesting, dana, and how yourcase came about During that
three and a half years.
I guess my question for both ofyou, april and Jane, is did you
ever feel like at any point, Ican't do this?
This is too much.
Dana has got me in way over myhead Because she's right.
(25:17):
It's one thing for Dana and Iwe love doing television, right,
dana?
But it's another thing to askyou guys who are trying to raise
multiple kiddos with full-time,really, really hard jobs to go
out there and do this and be thelead plaintiffs in a case like
(25:37):
this.
Speaker 6 (25:39):
Were there times that we looked at each other and
said have we lost our minds?
Of course there were times.
But you go back home and youstare at those three, four, five
tiny faces and you know.
You know you're doing the rightthing.
No, any parent, any mother, isgoing to do anything that they
(26:02):
can to protect their child andthat's all we were doing.
You know.
I think at some point in timethey tried to change the idea of
the court case.
When they changed it tomarriage, we were asked by some
outside groups to focus on Janeand I, and when we did that, it
wasn't natural because thiswasn't about Jane and I.
(26:25):
Jane and I knew what we weregetting ourselves into.
We knew when we got married andhad our commitment ceremony, we
knew what we were looking into.
I don't think when we startedadopting kids that we realized
what we were getting them intoand it wasn't fair.
So we were going to do anythingwe could to make sure that they
(26:47):
were safe.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Yeah, and I mean just all of the hundreds of
thousands of families now thathave rights that they sort of
take for granted, not knowingwhat it was like to live during
a time period where they didn'thave those rights.
And again, it's only been 10years, it's not like this is
something that happened 50 yearsago or 70 years ago or 100
years ago.
(27:09):
But I think that the collectivememory, especially for younger
generations, of what it was liketo not have the same rights and
you know, as your neighbors, asall the other families that you
know, I mean, I think that'sbeen sort of lost in many ways,
because we did make a lot ofprogress very, very quickly, and
I think it's only now thatpeople are starting to
(27:30):
appreciate that all of that canbe taken away just as quickly as
it came about in the firstplace.
Speaker 6 (27:37):
Yes, we were asked a question as to how are we going
to celebrate the 10 yearanniversary, and the only thing
I could think of was I don'tknow that I can celebrate it.
Yes, we're happy we're here,but it just takes a moment for
us to lose all of this.
And and how do you celebratethat?
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Dana.
Behind her has a picture ofherself arguing your case.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
And there's you guys, there you are, oh there we are.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Yeah, we all looked like 40 years younger, I think
at that time.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
That's not my drawing , Dana.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
No, she, during the course of the trial.
Jane is actually a very goodartist, by the way.
I have your drawings.
Here's the funny part, ofcourse, is that you know who do
we try this case against?
But the Department of AttorneyGeneral, and so all of our
opposing counsel, all thoselawyers now work for me, and so
(28:46):
Jane, you know, would sketchlike hilarious little cartoons
of them.
But it is why I mean, it's oneof horrifically creative
arguments as to why, you know,same-sex couples weren't good
(29:08):
enough to get married, why wecouldn't.
You know why same-sex couplescouldn't appreciate the sanctity
of marriage, or why ourchildren were destined to all go
to prison, which was an actualargument that they made.
And to know that by people likeyou and I serving in these
roles, we can ensure that ourstate tax dollars are used to
protect our state residentsinstead of to discriminate
(29:30):
against them.
And I think that's sort of aninteresting point.
Now too, and I always tell thestory of like, downstairs in the
lobby, right in front of mypredecessor's portrait down,
there is a pride flag, which I'msure if he ever comes back to
the Department of AttorneyGeneral, he will really
appreciate the placement of thatparticular flag.
(29:50):
It matters having people inthese critical offices that care
about people's constitutionalrights and want to make their
lives better, not worse.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, and it matters that we have
folks like both of you who arewilling to stand up for what's
right, to stand up for yourfamilies as April pointed out,
because that's what what this isabout and to stand up for
fundamental right.
Thank you both for everythingthat you did for our country.
(30:24):
You're both patriots as far asI'm concerned, and I am a little
jealous because you got to hangout with Dana in a court case
for three and a half years.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
Listen, I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
We had some good times.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
We had some good times.
We had some good times we hadsome good times.
We had some good times.
We had some good times, Boy,when they, you know, first of
all, when they use the phrasedon't make a federal case out of
it.
There's a reason for that, andyou know it really.
You talk about this being aroller coaster.
It truly was, but, like I said,none of this would have
happened, and none of it wouldhave happened in the way it did,
if it had not been for thecourage of April and Jane and
(31:02):
their family, and you know it's.
It was an unbelievableexperience and you guys were
quite literally the perfectplaintiffs.
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (31:13):
Thank you, Well thank you both for joining us.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
We really appreciate you.
Here's to Obergefell, the casethat should have been called
DeBoer.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
That's right, and happy early anniversary to you
guys.
Thank you, thanks, you too,thank you.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Thanks for joining us .
Gentlemen from California isrecognized.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr Speaker, I rise today toenter the following words into
the congressional record nounion is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies thehighest ideals of love, fidelity
, devotion, sacrifice and family.
In forming a marital union, twopeople become something greater
than once they were.
As some of the petitioners inthese cases demonstrate,
(32:11):
marriage embodies a love thatmay endure even past death.
It would misunderstand thesemen and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage.
Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply
that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves.
Their hope is not to becondemned to live in loneliness.
Excluded from one ofcivilization's oldest
institutions, they ask for equaldignity in the eyes of the law.
(32:34):
The Constitution grants themthat right.
The judgment of the Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit is
reversed.
It is so ordered.
These words, mr Speaker, werewritten by Supreme Court Justice
Anthony Kennedy in hisObergefell versus Hodges ruling,
and they embody what the LGBTcommunity has pursued for
decades equality under the law.
(32:55):
Thank you, and I yield back thebalance of my time.
Gentleman yields back his time.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
So this marks the end of our special two-part Pride
Month series here on Pantsuitsand Lawsuits.
We really appreciate you tuningin.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah, it has been great reminiscing with everyone
about how far we've come in thelast decade.
Up until very recent months anduntil next time this has been
AG.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
Nessel and AG Mays for Pantsuits and Lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Signing off.
Hello and welcome back to the second installment
of our special Pride Monthretrospective celebrating the
10-year anniversary ofObergefell v Hodges landmark
Supreme Court case, whichlegalized same-sex marriage and
adoption rights all across theUnited States.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
I'm Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
And I'm Arizona Attorney GeneralChris Mays, and if you, were
not able to catch part one ofthis riveting episode, we'd
recommend pausing now andlistening to that one first.
Let's get started, and I willjust say this personally,
(00:54):
because this is the story ofApril and Jane, but it's my
story too.
You know, I met my wife workingon this case.
I met her at a local library.
They were having a Democraticclub meeting which I had never
been to before.
It was my first Dem clubmeeting and I was desperately
because we couldn't get fundingto support the litigation, which
(01:17):
had become very expensive, andit was hard for the attorneys
ourselves to have to eat allthose costs.
And so I started going to somedifferent Dem clubs, including
in my own hometown, where Ididn't even know they had a Dem
club and my mother-in-law wasthe president of the Dem club.
And I met her daughter, whobegan working on helping us
(01:40):
raise money and then puttogether a nonprofit to
subsidize the cost of the case.
Wow.
Then she started working on thecase and became our project
manager to put all the exhibitsand everything together for
trial and the PowerPoint and allthe rest.
We got engaged.
I proposed to her on the stepsof the Supreme court, following
our argument, and then we gotkidding, really following your
(02:03):
argument, wow, right after thearguments, and I said, if that's
so romantic, yes, if five ofthe nine justices of this
Supreme court agree, will you beapplicant number two on my
application for a marriagelicense in the state of Michigan
.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Those were oh my God.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, that was my proposal to her.
Literally, that was it.
That was it.
She was very romantic, romantic, uh.
She accepted in a weird sort ofway.
Yeah, hi, you guys, thank youso much for uh joining us, and I
(02:47):
know it's been a little bitsince we've seen each other.
But, april and jane, this is agchris mays, from arizona, and,
as you probably know, now wehave a podcast together and I'm
so excited that you guys couldjoin us today to talk about the
10-year anniversary ofobergeveld, slasher v, snyder,
deboer, which is what it reallyshould be called.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Yes, exactly, we've been talking, dana and I have
been talking, and she gave methe full procedural history and
how it really should have beencalled something else.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Yes, Absolutely, and again, no offense to him.
But in our household we referto Jim Obergefell as an accident
of history because we stillbelieve the case should be
called DeBoer v Snyder.
And I actually have a coffeemug from the Supreme Court that
has all the most impactful casesand I have it like duct taped
out and I have written DeBoer vSnyder over Obergefell.
(03:42):
That's great.
Just just to back up, you guyshave five children together.
We do, yes.
Do you want to tell AG Mays andour listeners a little bit
about how you guys formed yourfamily?
Speaker 6 (03:56):
Oh sure.
So Jane and I adopted all fiveof our children.
So initially Nolan came to usfirst, and here in the state of
Michigan we were not allowed toadopt the children together.
So Nolan was adopted initiallyby Jane, and then we had Ryan
(04:20):
come into our house and to ourlife and she initially was
adopted by me.
And then Jacob came and Jacobwas adopted again by Jane
because I was still in theprocess of adopting Ryanne, and
so we had these three wonderfulchildren, and that's how it all
(04:44):
started.
And then we adopted two morechildren.
After the two of them, rileywas adopted again by me, and
then Kennedy came after theruling and the decision.
So she was the first and onlychild to be jointly adopted by
both of us.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
And Chris, I'm sure it's not lost on you the name of
their youngest child, Namedafter Justice Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Very interesting Okay good.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
But again, and just important to know, that April
and Jane, you guys had beentogether when you first brought
Nolan in.
For how many years had you guysbeen a couple?
Oh, that's totally you.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Jane, let's see 18.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Wow, about 18 years.
And both April and Jane were,at the time, nurses in local
hospitals in Detroit and Janewas an emergency room nurse and
April was a NICU nurse, and theyhad both been qualified by the
state to be foster care parents.
(05:52):
So they were able to bringchildren into their homes as
foster care parents, and jointlyso, but not as adoptive parents
together, which was a weirdquirk of the law that we found
to be incredibly horrible.
So I'm just with thatbackground for everybody, yeah
for sure, with that you guys.
(06:14):
I wonder if you could juststart off by telling us a little
bit about that fateful day backin.
I believe it was 2011, I think,when we first spoke and talked
about the possibility ofbringing this federal lawsuit.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
So, yeah, I think I had located you.
We had a near-miss accident,almost were killed in a car
accident, and the realizationhit that if something happened
to Jane, that the boys would endup not having a parent and I
(06:51):
personally would have no legalright to either of the boys.
Yeah, and then the realizationthat my mom, who is really the
only I shouldn't say just my mom, but my family was really the
only family that the kids hadknown because we lived in
Michigan, and Jane's family'sfrom Indiana.
(07:11):
And then it was the realizationthat Nolan, had he survived,
would have been going tosomebody that he didn't know
really at all, because theywould have the next legal right
to no one, and that just didn'tsit well with us.
And we had been seeing a bunchof advertisements and
(07:32):
information about Dana wantingto do some second documentation
for wills and all of that inchild custody for gays and
lesbians who found themselves inthis situation.
So I reached out to her and I'mlike, what can we do?
And her comment was well, wecan get this all on paper, but
(07:55):
it's only going to be worth thepaper that it's written on,
because the judges can make anydecision that they want based on
us having no legal right to ourkids, and so we went from there
to well, what else can we do?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And Dana the great plan up her sleeve.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Tell me about that great plan and what it was like
to work with her, and did sheprepare you at all or steal you
for what was ahead, what wasgoing to be this, what must have
been a roller coaster of a rideand, at the end of the day,
literally making Americanhistory.
Like what was that like workingwith her?
(08:43):
I'm just curious.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Nobody anticipated where it was going to go, that's
for sure.
Really Okay, no.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Did she tell you?
But she just told me that shehad a feeling deep down that
this thing was going to go allthe way.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
but she didn't share, that we didn't know it was
going to switch to marriage.
That was, I think that was thebig thing, was you know?
We had hoped that adoptionwould have been the key, because
that was something everybodycould get behind.
But when you know, judgeFriedman said, well, this is a
gay marriage case, we were like,oh no, that's not what this is,
(09:20):
and that was, that was thepivotal point in all this that
everybody went, oh no, what dowe do now?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
We were initially challenging the the adoption
code in.
Michigan that didn't allow forpeople who weren't married to be
able to adopt jointly.
And when we had cross motionsfor summary judgment before our
district court judge in theEastern District of Michigan, he
surprised all of us by notgranting either of the motions
(09:51):
for summary and by saying Ithink you have to amend your
pleadings.
This is not an adoption case,this is a marriage case.
You have to challenge theMichigan marriage amendment
which doesn't allow you to getmarried in the first place,
because you wouldn't have toworry about the adoption code
saying that you had to be amarried couple.
If only you could get married.
So really you should justchallenge the marriage ban.
(10:13):
And that threw all of us for alittle bit of a loop, I thought
I think is a mild way to put it.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So, so so you end up in this case case it's it's
taking these twists and theseturns and, as dana has described
earlier, uh, in the podcast,you, you all end up really kind
of getting um swept into this umcase that ends up at the
supreme court.
I mean, I don't mean to cut tothe chase or anything, but what
(10:43):
was that like?
And then tell me what it waslike when, on the day that you
that you won won the case orfound out that you'd won the
case, the way to get to theSupreme Court, or when we got
there Both both, especially whenyou got there, but both what
was, what was, what was bothlike?
Speaker 3 (11:06):
I think getting there was.
You know it's going to soundcrazy, but it wasn't hard, it
was going, you know, goingthrough things.
But once we really explainedwhy we were doing what we were
doing, most people understood.
They realized that we weren'treally out for marriage per se,
(11:27):
but it was to protect the kids.
Yeah, once that was explained,people were like, okay, I can
see why you're doing this.
Yeah, um, once we got to theSupreme Court, wow, what a
feeling that was.
That was crazy.
Like nothing I'd ever seenthere was.
You know, there was just a seaof people and the Michigan
(11:47):
contingent was huge.
Like, what we brought wasincredible.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
So you were there the day of the arguments.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Yes, we were in the court the day of the arguments
wow, what did that feel like?
Speaker 1 (12:02):
what was that like?
Speaker 6 (12:04):
well, I think, um, my , the scariest moment of that
whole thing was how they broughtinto the supreme court.
They walked us through thecrowd.
It was a little scary, but itwas just a sense of awe, like
how did we get here?
(12:25):
I mean, like we're just twoparents who want our kids to
have safeties, how are we in theSupreme Court?
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It was just crazy, it's just crazy and I guess let
me ask this question to allthree of you.
What was when you werelistening to the oral argument?
What were your thoughts?
And, Dana, like, what were youthinking?
How did you feel?
Like it was going in the moment?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Obviously, it ended up going well.
But yeah, I mean, the thing wasit was so hard to tell.
You know, as you wouldanticipate, the questions that
were asked by Justice Kagan weresemi predictable by, you know,
justice Ginsburg Also.
The questions that Alito askedwere not very favorable, as you
(13:16):
would anticipate.
But it was Kennedy that Icouldn't tell which way he was
going to go.
And here we knew that theentire case was predicated on
what Kennedy was going to domost likely.
I kind of hoped maybe there wasa chance with Roberts, but that
was an outside chance.
But it was Kennedy that we werecounting on and the way he was
(13:36):
positioning his questions Icouldn't tell one way or the
other.
And it was the first time Ithought my God, are we going to
lose this case?
Because I don't know what youguys thought, but I wasn't sure
from some of the questions thathe asked.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
You said that.
Well, marriage is differentbecause it's controlled by the
government.
But from a historical, from ananthropological standpoint,
Justice Scalia was very carefulto talk about societies.
Justice Alito talked aboutcultures.
If you read about the Kalaharipeople or ancient peoples, they
(14:11):
didn't have a government thatmade this Well, they made it
themselves, and it was man orwoman.
Part of what you see, I suppose,is to ascertain whether the
social science, the new studies,are accurate, but that it seems
to me then that we should notconsult at all the social
(14:38):
science on this because it's toonew.
You say we don't need to waitfor changes.
So it seems to me that if we'renot going to wait, then it's
only fair for us to say well,we're not going to consult
social science.
Justice Alito's question pointsout the assumption of his
hypothetical and the way thesecases are presented is that the
(15:03):
state does have a sufficientinterest so that it need not
allow the marriages in thatstate.
So there is a sufficientinterest under our arguendo
assumption here to say that thisis not a fundamental right.
But then, suddenly, if you'reout of state, why should the
(15:25):
state have to yield?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
I thought the questions were crazy.
Yeah, the questions.
We were just like where are wegoing with this?
Because to me some of themdidn't line up with what the
case was all about.
They were going down thisrabbit hole of weird questions.
Speaker 6 (15:47):
I think we left just not not knowing, like if there
was a bigger question after weleft than before we went in.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So so then the big day happens.
Well, tell me about where youwere when, when it happened, and
what, what you, what wentthrough your minds when the
decision was read.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Well, every day we waited for if the case was going
to be put up that day, andevery day it was like, oh, and
it got down to Friday, and itwas either Friday or Monday when
it was, it had to come out.
And I we had plans every day tobe in Ann Arbor.
So we were at the Jim ToyCenter in Ann Arbor and waiting,
(16:35):
yeah, hoping, hoping it wasgoing to come out, because there
were just hundreds and hundredsof people waiting.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
And media press from all across the world.
Yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So when it popped up, we were together.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
We were all together.
Ok, yeah, we were.
We were all on our edge of ourseats waiting to see if it was
going to pop up.
So when it did, then everybodyreally leaned in and waited to
hear what was going to be said,and I think it was Alana that
actually read it, and then Carolwas right behind her and it was
like, and then it was likequiet and then celebration.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Yeah, I mean nobody wants to be wrong because you're
in real time, You're reading it, while you have all these
members of the press that arereading it and you know nobody
wants to be like, oh, thatthat's the wrong interpretation
of what they just said of thissummary, but it's so.
It took us a second or twobefore we all jumped up and just
(17:35):
I mean tears of joy, yes and so, and just I mean tears of joy,
yes, and celebrate.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Oh yeah, yeah, I think it was like we won.
I think we won.
Wait, we won.
It was just, you know, jumpingaround and hugging and tears.
Speaker 6 (18:02):
And my kids were actually in a summer camp of
sorts and so my mom had takenthem over there and so somebody
had the television runninginside the building and my mom
said it was the cutest thing shesays all of a sudden she heard
there.
And my mom said it was thecutest thing she says all of a
sudden she heard there's my mom.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
So so what was the immediate?
So you have this incrediblemoment of euphoria over this
decision.
What was the immediatepractical effect of, of the
decision?
Speaker 3 (18:39):
they had to plan a wedding now we had to go out and
watch weddings.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Yeah, party first, yeah then it was yeah, yeah, oh
yeah, people got married likecrazy.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
It was great, I think we.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
We signed a couple of uh wedding certificates, I
believe as witnesses.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
yeah, you guys did remember that we signed a couple
of wedding certificates, Ibelieve, as witnesses.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, you guys did Remember that, but you
ultimately achieved what you setout to achieve.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
Correct.
If it weren't for the group ofattorneys that we had, I don't
think we would have made itwhere we were.
But yeah, we got what we wantedand what my kids needed, and
that's really the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
You know you mentioned something I don't know
if it was you, jane, or April,april.
You mentioned that that people,um, when you, when you talk to
people about, uh, the practicalimplications of being able to
adopt and and get married, theystarted to get it, they started
to support what you were doing.
Um, I guess, and and I guess myquestion is um.
(19:56):
So what's the reaction?
You know we're coming up on 10years, the 10-year anniversary
of this decision.
Has that support only grown, doyou feel like, since the
decision?
But also there's been rumblingsthat the Supreme Court might
(20:24):
overturn it.
We've had some reallydisturbing comments by at least
one, if not more, of the SupremeCourt justices about
potentially overturning it.
How do people react?
Speaker 3 (20:37):
now, I haven't had any negatives.
I don't know about you, I mean,everybody just seems to be like
had any negatives?
I don't.
I don't know about you.
I mean, everybody just seems tobe like oh, they're married,
okay, life goes on, there's nodifference.
I haven't heard any negative.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
I haven't either.
We, we have not been approachedby anybody.
There's been really no negativemedia.
No, not on our end anyway.
But again, we kind of fadedinto the background because you
know, we did our work and yes,you did.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
We were tired, but I will say this I think that April
and Jane being who they are andtheir family being who they
were, and them openingthemselves up the way that you
have to when you are theplaintiffs in a massive case, as
this one was, you know, I knowit took a toll on them and their
family, but for us, you know,for me, working on the case, I
wanted the entire world to getto know April and Jane and their
(21:39):
kids, because I knew that toknow them is to love them and to
understand that if you knowthis family, you can't otherize
them.
They are just like you.
They are your friends, they areyour neighbors, they're the.
These are the people you go towhen you have a sick family
member and you you have.
You go to the hospital or youknow this is.
These are parents who are onyour kid's field trip.
(22:01):
You know a chaperones with you.
They're exactly like you andthey just want to be treated
exactly the same.
No better, no, not inferior.
They just want to be treatedthe same as all other couples
and all other families.
And that's what April and Janedid is they brought that to
everybody and they know thatthere was not a camera that they
(22:23):
shied away from or a microphone, when I had shoved it in front
of them and said you know, makesure you're presenting your case
.
I mean, I can't do this and theother lawyers can't do this the
way that you can, to beadvocates for yourself, to show
the whole world that you're justregular people and you're just
a family that wants to berecognized as a legal family
(22:43):
with legal rights, like allother families are.
And they did just such aphenomenal job in that.
So, yes, I'd like to think thatthe lawyers on the case made
very good arguments andpresented good evidence, but it
was them as a family.
I think that ultimately led tothe success of this case.
That ultimately led to thesuccess of this case because,
whether we want to believe it ornot, I think that the Supreme
(23:05):
Court does pay attention topublic opinion.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
I think it does matter.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
And I think that they were an instrumental part
themselves, with many otherfamilies across the United
States stepping forward andsaying, instead of hiding in the
shadows, saying we are a familytoo and we deserve to have
these rights.
And they subjected themselvesto a lot in terms of the time,
the energy, the effort and alsoyou know it's a scary thing to
put yourself out there publiclylike that, but they were champs
(23:38):
and they never said no to any ofthat stuff and I think they
understood their place inhistory and they stepped up, and
but not for this.
You know normally a lot ofthese groups.
You know ECLU or, or you knowyou know Lambda Legal or all
these other groups.
You know they spend so muchtime like selecting their
(24:01):
plaintiffs right and making surethat they have people that will
present best to the courts.
And you know we didn't do anyof that.
Just April and Jane called me upone day and I heard their story
and I was so moved by it.
I just knew that that they werethe ones to really move the
(24:21):
ball forward and they were suchchamps.
I can't believe that you guyssaid yes first of all, and it
was a very difficult three and ahalf years or so.
I mean, it was not easy on them, it was not easier on their
families, but they dideverything that was asked of
them and I think they were a bigpart of this win, as well as
(24:43):
many other factors thatcoalesced at the same time, so
they deserve a lot of credit forthis.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
This is a very organic story, which is really
interesting, dana, and how yourcase came about During that
three and a half years.
I guess my question for both ofyou, april and Jane, is did you
ever feel like at any point, Ican't do this?
This is too much.
Dana has got me in way over myhead Because she's right.
(25:17):
It's one thing for Dana and Iwe love doing television, right,
dana?
But it's another thing to askyou guys who are trying to raise
multiple kiddos with full-time,really, really hard jobs to go
out there and do this and be thelead plaintiffs in a case like
(25:37):
this.
Speaker 6 (25:39):
Were there times that we looked at each other and
said have we lost our minds?
Of course there were times.
But you go back home and youstare at those three, four, five
tiny faces and you know.
You know you're doing the rightthing.
No, any parent, any mother, isgoing to do anything that they
(26:02):
can to protect their child andthat's all we were doing.
You know.
I think at some point in timethey tried to change the idea of
the court case.
When they changed it tomarriage, we were asked by some
outside groups to focus on Janeand I, and when we did that, it
wasn't natural because thiswasn't about Jane and I.
(26:25):
Jane and I knew what we weregetting ourselves into.
We knew when we got married andhad our commitment ceremony, we
knew what we were looking into.
I don't think when we startedadopting kids that we realized
what we were getting them intoand it wasn't fair.
So we were going to do anythingwe could to make sure that they
(26:47):
were safe.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Yeah, and I mean just all of the hundreds of
thousands of families now thathave rights that they sort of
take for granted, not knowingwhat it was like to live during
a time period where they didn'thave those rights.
And again, it's only been 10years, it's not like this is
something that happened 50 yearsago or 70 years ago or 100
years ago.
(27:09):
But I think that the collectivememory, especially for younger
generations, of what it was liketo not have the same rights and
you know, as your neighbors, asall the other families that you
know, I mean, I think that'sbeen sort of lost in many ways,
because we did make a lot ofprogress very, very quickly, and
I think it's only now thatpeople are starting to
(27:30):
appreciate that all of that canbe taken away just as quickly as
it came about in the firstplace.
Speaker 6 (27:37):
Yes, we were asked a question as to how are we going
to celebrate the 10 yearanniversary, and the only thing
I could think of was I don'tknow that I can celebrate it.
Yes, we're happy we're here,but it just takes a moment for
us to lose all of this.
And and how do you celebratethat?
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Dana.
Behind her has a picture ofherself arguing your case.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
And there's you guys, there you are, oh there we are.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Yeah, we all looked like 40 years younger, I think
at that time.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
That's not my drawing , Dana.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
No, she, during the course of the trial.
Jane is actually a very goodartist, by the way.
I have your drawings.
Here's the funny part, ofcourse, is that you know who do
we try this case against?
But the Department of AttorneyGeneral, and so all of our
opposing counsel, all thoselawyers now work for me, and so
(28:46):
Jane, you know, would sketchlike hilarious little cartoons
of them.
But it is why I mean, it's oneof horrifically creative
arguments as to why, you know,same-sex couples weren't good
(29:08):
enough to get married, why wecouldn't.
You know why same-sex couplescouldn't appreciate the sanctity
of marriage, or why ourchildren were destined to all go
to prison, which was an actualargument that they made.
And to know that by people likeyou and I serving in these
roles, we can ensure that ourstate tax dollars are used to
protect our state residentsinstead of to discriminate
(29:30):
against them.
And I think that's sort of aninteresting point.
Now too, and I always tell thestory of like, downstairs in the
lobby, right in front of mypredecessor's portrait down,
there is a pride flag, which I'msure if he ever comes back to
the Department of AttorneyGeneral, he will really
appreciate the placement of thatparticular flag.
(29:50):
It matters having people inthese critical offices that care
about people's constitutionalrights and want to make their
lives better, not worse.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, and it matters that we have
folks like both of you who arewilling to stand up for what's
right, to stand up for yourfamilies as April pointed out,
because that's what what this isabout and to stand up for
fundamental right.
Thank you both for everythingthat you did for our country.
(30:24):
You're both patriots as far asI'm concerned, and I am a little
jealous because you got to hangout with Dana in a court case
for three and a half years.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
Listen, I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
We had some good times.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
We had some good times.
We had some good times we hadsome good times.
We had some good times.
We had some good times, Boy,when they, you know, first of
all, when they use the phrasedon't make a federal case out of
it.
There's a reason for that, andyou know it really.
You talk about this being aroller coaster.
It truly was, but, like I said,none of this would have
happened, and none of it wouldhave happened in the way it did,
if it had not been for thecourage of April and Jane and
(31:02):
their family, and you know it's.
It was an unbelievableexperience and you guys were
quite literally the perfectplaintiffs.
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (31:13):
Thank you, Well thank you both for joining us.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
We really appreciate you.
Here's to Obergefell, the casethat should have been called
DeBoer.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
That's right, and happy early anniversary to you
guys.
Thank you, thanks, you too,thank you.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Thanks for joining us .
Gentlemen from California isrecognized.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr Speaker, I rise today toenter the following words into
the congressional record nounion is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies thehighest ideals of love, fidelity
, devotion, sacrifice and family.
In forming a marital union, twopeople become something greater
than once they were.
As some of the petitioners inthese cases demonstrate,
(32:11):
marriage embodies a love thatmay endure even past death.
It would misunderstand thesemen and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage.
Their plea is that they dorespect it, respect it so deeply
that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves.
Their hope is not to becondemned to live in loneliness.
Excluded from one ofcivilization's oldest
institutions, they ask for equaldignity in the eyes of the law.
(32:34):
The Constitution grants themthat right.
The judgment of the Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit is
reversed.
It is so ordered.
These words, mr Speaker, werewritten by Supreme Court Justice
Anthony Kennedy in hisObergefell versus Hodges ruling,
and they embody what the LGBTcommunity has pursued for
decades equality under the law.
(32:55):
Thank you, and I yield back thebalance of my time.
Gentleman yields back his time.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
So this marks the end of our special two-part Pride
Month series here on Pantsuitsand Lawsuits.
We really appreciate you tuningin.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah, it has been great reminiscing with everyone
about how far we've come in thelast decade.
Up until very recent months anduntil next time this has been
AG.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
Nessel and AG Mays for Pantsuits and Lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Signing off.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.