Ijpe DeKoe never expected that his August 2011 marriage to Thom Kostura would one day lead them both to the Supreme Court.
But on Tuesday morning, the couple found themselves waiting to enter the chambers of the nation's highest court in a landmark case on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in four states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. If the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it would ostensibly legalize gay marriage throughout the country.
DeKoe and Kostura were legally wed in New York but now reside in Tennessee where their union is not recognized. In 2013, they joined a lawsuit with two other couples, challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court consolidated that suit with others under the name Obergefell v. Hodges.
Does the Constitution require states to permit same-sex couples to marry? Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states? The arguments were broken up into two sessions with these separate questions.
"When Thom and I got married it was a commitment to take care of each other," DeKoe told Mashable. "The state of New York recognized that, gave us a piece of paper to hang up. When we moved to Tennessee, the state said, 'You are strangers.' That is baffling to us."
By midmorning, DeKoe and Kostura shuffled into the courtroom with their fellow plaintiffs, and took a seat with a full view of the justices who pressed lawyers from both sides about whether or not the Constitution should essentially protect the rights of same-sex couples.
"It was absolutely surreal," DeKoe said.
#SCOTUS decision is the kind that will forever affect the lives of millions and forever define a generation. #LoveCantWait #marriagequality— Josh Slusher (@Josh_Slusher) April 28, 2015
The justices had already spent an hour listening to the first set of arguments, some of them hinting aloud at their reservations.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that the plaintiffs didn't want to "join" the institution of marriage, but rather to change it.
"The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship," he said.
Scholars: No legal right to 'gay marriage' in Constitution http://t.co/FDA0oyCpZs— WNY Catholic (@WNYCatholic) April 28, 2015
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is expected to be a swing vote in the case, echoed a similar concern about the timelessness of marriage as an idea, and what role, if any, the Supreme Court should play in changing that.
"This definition [of marriage] has been with us for millennia," he said. "And it's very difficult for the Court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'"
Mary Bonauto, a gay rights activist and lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that the Constitution has provided equal protection to women, for example, as their role in society evolved. That same approach, she suggested, should be relevant for gay people seeking to marry.
"The American people have been debating and discussing this," Bonauto said. "It has been exhaustively aired, and the bottom line is that gay and lesbian families live in communities as neighbors throughout this whole country.”
DeKoe, who was permitted to sit in the courtroom for the second round of arguments, said the justices asked sharp questions of both sides.
Justice Samuel Alito asked if sanctioning same-sex marriage across the country could force states to recognize other forms of marriage that could be opposed on moral grounds, such as polygamy or underage unions.
#SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage will have no bearing on my belief system. I'll still believe it to be a sin. That will never change.— Samantha (@Janiece1986) April 28, 2015
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs, said states would have a "sufficiently important interest" to prevent the recognition of such marriages, but that the same logic does not apply to same-sex unions.
DeKoe said he wasn't offended by that line of questioning or other challenges from the justices. "They are fairly representing everyone in the United States," he said.
More than anything, DeKoe was thrilled with Hallward-Driemeier's closing argument, which focused on the personal details of his story and those of the other plaintiffs from Tennessee.
DeKoe, who is a Sergeant First Class in the Army Reserve, serves on a post in Millington, Tennessee, where his marriage is recognized. Yet, when he leaves at the end of the day, he is no longer married in the eyes of the state.
My family members have a right to marry whomever the hell they want, just like me. #marriagequality #LoveCantWait— Luna Love (@happi_ale) April 28, 2015
"The United States Army moved them to Tennessee," Hallward-Driemeier said, "and given the location of Army based in this country, it's almost a certainty that anyone serving in the Army for any length of time will be stationed at some point in a State that would dissolve their marriage as a matter of State law."
After the arguments concluded, DeKoe and Kostura walked down the courthouse steps to what he described as a "roar" of support from the crowd.
The couple will return to Tennessee and await the Supreme Court's ruling, which will likely be announced in late June.
Until then, he said, "we're going to do exactly what we've been doing -- being married, taking it day by day."