1.) We saw in the Lawrence v Texas case that those plaintiffs were imperfect and therefore the defense attorneys did everything they could to keep them out of the public eye. And it worked: the majority opinion talked about the right to sexual privacy through the lens of love and domestic intimacy, without referencing the plaintiffs in any specific way. How was Hardwick different? In what ways was he "imperfect"? Did he counter the "asexual" norm that Godsoe identified as so important to the self-presentation of plaintiffs in the Obergefell case? And if so, where did that imperfect character show up? Did he put himself in the news? Did the oral argumentation reference him as a character (as opposed to staying focused on the abstract concepts his case represented)?

Sources:

Bowers v. Hardwick: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140

Obergefell v Hodges: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556

Lawrence v Texas: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102

Godsoe:

More recently, inLawrence v. Texas,36cause lawyers saddled with unsympathetic plaintiffs successfully made over their clients. Dale Carpenter has uncovered the "real story" behindLawrence.37The two men lauded in an opinion about "relationships" and "enduring personal bonds" were not a couple, and perhaps not even lovers at all. Instead, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were two "uncultured" low-income gay menGarner was virtually homeless and Lawrence had convictions for 'murder by automobile' and DWIsembroiled in a drunken argument with another friend.38The Texas sodomy law was very rarely enforced and convictions never appealed as punishment was a relatively low fine.39Indeed, Lawrence and Garner were likely arrested because they were rude to the officers at the scene, and advocates only learned of the unusual case via a closeted gay court clerk who happened across the arrest report.40Given the rarity of arrests, LGB activists seized the opportunity, warts and all.41To maintain cover and reframe a "booze-soaked quarrel" as a "love story," their lawyers silenced Lawrence and Garner.42In stark contrast to theObergefellplaintiffs, they never appeared publicly without "minders," and they were largely ignored by activists after the decision.43Sufficient funds could not even be raised for Garner's funeral when he died destitute in 2006.44One journalist articulated the attorneys' fears when he

B. Asexual

A significant part of normalizing LGB people is obscuring their sexuality.62It is no coincidence that most of the plaintiffs are either parents or widowers, so the focus is not on the couple alone.63As Mary Anne Case has pointed out, gay rights become more palatable when the vision of "the gay couple

copulating" is farther away.64Not one of the many photographs and videos available online depict a plaintiff kissing his or her partner. Sex is never mentionedperhaps a legacy of the successful packaging of Edie Windsor. The plaintiffs have mostly been together for a significant time, several for twenty or even forty years.65Their relationships are described as "committed" (read: monogamous).66If anyone were inclined to contemplate plaintiffs' sexual relationships, they could rest assured that those relationships are "proper."

Any details that do not focus on children or household chores are very tame. Isn't it sweet that TimLoveand his partner Larry wear matching T-shirts proclaiming "Love Wins?"67And that two of the couples share the same name? (Kelly and Brittani, meet Kelly and Brittni.)68Only one couple highlights the story of their relationship. Kim Franklin and Tammy Boyd met in high school and re-met and fell in love years later. But rather than the mature sexual attraction they felt for each other as adults, they describe "girlhood crushes" and a "sunset beach wedding."69Perhaps even that amount of detail was palatable because of the long history of tolerating lesbian, particularly girly, sex over gay male sex.70These plaintiffs again differ from less model predecessors such as McCorvey who had three children by three fathers. They are what Katherine Franke has described as "legitimate homosexual[s] . . . willing to keep quiet about the sex part of homosexual."71As such, they overcome stereotypes of LGB people as promiscuous, and further entrench the cabined paradigm of sexuality the Court set out inLawrence.

D. "Accidental Activists"

The final ingredient in the perfect plaintiff is a disdain for politics. TheObergefellplaintiffs have been cast as "ordinary" folks who just happened to get involved, like the Lovings. The press described one couple as "never [seeking] to make headlines, much less history . . . . They were nurses, not lawyers or

activists."86Obergefell himself disclaims any past political interest, repeating, "No one could everaccuseus of being activists . . . . We just lived our lives. We were just John and Jim."87

They protest too much. In contrast to the Lovings, none of the current plaintiffs truly became involved in the litigation through chance. Nor were they hastily selected out of necessity, like Roe and Lawrence.88Several had been involved in previous LGB advocacy;89all were attractive candidates for careful recruitment by cause lawyers.90To maintain the apolitical narrative, most cause lawyers are silent about the process of plaintiff selection. SeveralObergefelllawyers, however, publicly acknowledged that they "built the case" before "finding plaintiffs," and chose plaintiffs who are professional, monogamous, and attractive.91

And since getting selected, they have constantly been in the public eye holding press conferences,92being feted at advocacy galas, writing a series for

Obergefell plaintiff Paul Campion describes himself and his partner as "upstanding, productive citizens."¹⁰⁸ The assertion is undoubtedly true. But these perfect plaintiffs, and the celebration they received in Justice Kennedy's opinion and throughout the litigation, cannot help but suggest that marriage and civic belonging are not human rights. Instead, they must be earned, earned by acting straight. I applaud the skilled and dedicated advocacy that led to marriage equality. Nonetheless, as scholars and advocates turn to the work that lies ahead for overall LGB equality, a more varied and representative depiction of families in future litigation can open up possibilities for recognizing and protecting the myriad ways people come together, love, and care for each other.