In August 2009, Amanda Day filed for divorce in Georgia. It should have been a simple procedure, as the feelings were mutual between both parties. Instead, a years-long legal battle ensued, and Amanda found herself fighting in court to legally untangle herself from her spouse. While Amandas marriage had legally taken place in Gwinnett County, Georgia, in 2007, the state refused to recognize the marriage for the purpose of a divorce.In the eyes of the law, the problem was that Amandas wife had transitioned in the intervening years, making the relationship a same-sex marriage in a state where that wasnt legal. Related Same-sex weddings have provided this huge side benefit to communities over the last decade Republicans risk a significant negative impact to their own state economies with their crusade against marriage equality. As the peculiar case dragged on, Amanda and her wife lived separately but remained trapped in matrimonial bond. Both were even engaged to other people before the eventual ruling freed them from their marriage. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today We were high school sweethearts, Amanda told LGBTQ Nation. Her ex-wife, Gillian (whose name has been changed), had to leave the call early but was happy for Amanda to share the story. We got married young, and we grew together, and at the time she realized that she wanted to be a she, I put her through girl boot camp. And then we realized that we were better off as friends than as partners, but we were together for a total of seven years.The pair got married in Georgia in 2007 and then moved to South Carolina. It was there that Gillian began transitioning, eventually meeting South Carolinas late-2000s requirements to update the gender marker on her IDs. Over the years, people have often jumped to the conclusion that Gillians transition was a driving force in their separation, but Amanda makes it very clear that this was not the case. It came down to Gillians interest in being poly that brought things to an end.Amanda piqued the lawyers interest by pointing out that if you can get divorced, you can get married.The two remained close friends, and when they first separated, Amanda returned to Gwinnett, Georgia. Even finding a divorce attorney for their case at the time proved to be a challenge. Some lawyers avoided the case because of the complexities they anticipated, while others actually used an anti-trans slur while rejecting Amanda as a client.Eventually, they found an LGBTQ+ rights lawyer through the ACLU, though she had never encountered a case like this before. The ACLU rarely gets involved in divorce cases, which often dont create law. Amanda piqued the lawyers interest by pointing out that if you can get divorced, you can get married. Make it work When Amanda approached the state for a divorce, they claimed that she wasnt married because same-sex marriage was not legal in Georgia. Amanda was happy to prove them wrong: Oh, but we were, she told officials. Heres all my receipts. The state then stalled on a response for months.After acknowledging the marriage was legal, the state directed them to get an annulment instead of a divorce, saying that Gillian had lied about her gender to marry Amanda, and thus the marriage was entered into under false pretenses. But Gillians original birth certificate and comprehensive documentation of her transition timeline contradicted that narrative, and Amanda was unwilling to agree to an annulment that placed unjust blame on Gillian.Ultimately, rather than approach the divorce filing with an acknowledgement of the gender transition, the attorney decided that the simplest way was to file as if Gillian had only had a name change. Usually, in a no-contest, no-fault divorce, a couple can simply file the paperwork, pay the fees, a notary signs it, and they get on with their lives. However, a month after filing, Amanda and Gillian received notices that they needed to come to court and meet in front of a judge to receive their divorce.The first time they went to court, they stood before Superior Court of Gwinnett Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Turner. The judge seemed surprised and confused by the case and proceeded to ask some very invasive questions, as everyone does. Turner asked Amanda why she had originally stayed with Gillian after her transition, and Amanda snapped, Because your honor, I fell in love with a human being, a person, not a penis. And of course, everybody starts laughing, and Im pissed, she recounted.Eventually, Judge Turner said that she wasnt comfortable granting the divorce and passed them along to another judge. That meant waiting for nearly another year. By the time the next hearing came around, nearly two years had elapsed since the initial filing. Amanda and Gillian, both engaged to other people by now, were eager to move on with their lives.I never answered any of the invasive questions, and I told him he could hold me in contempt all he wanted.Amanda Day When they appeared in court again, they stood before Judge Mark Lewis. Instead of asking them to identify themselves, Amanda said Lewis curtly asked, Which one of you is it? And I looked at this man straight back in the face and I go, Your honor, if you cant tell, does it matter? And he goes, I guess its you then.Hes asking some of the most invasive questions about our sex lives, and then he said he was going to hold me in contempt for being difficult and evasive and not answering questions, Amanda said. I never answered any of the invasive questions, and I told him he could hold me in contempt all he wanted.After an hour in divorce court, Lewis called for a lunch break but insisted that Gillian and Amanda return to answer more questions. Amanda called their attorney and was told to keep going in spite of the contempt threats. If he actually held her in contempt, the media would get involved, and the state would not want the attention.Lewis then insisted that the gender change must be the real reason for the divorce, which Amanda disputed. Lewis eventually called Amanda up to the side of the bench and pushed his mic away. Hes like, youre doing this for the ACLU. Youre doing this for fame.Im doing this because I want out of this marriage, but I am not going to throw that young lady right over there whos bawling her eyes out under the bus, Amanda recounted saying. Its not her fault. Finally he goes, Okay, the way your attorney filed it, we can make it work.A powerful divorce While the case ended in that courtroom, the legal minds involved had seen the potential for what their divorce could mean. Before it got to court, their lawyer didnt think the case would get to a point of setting precedent, but did think Amanda in particular might be a good figure for trying to get a case like this to higher courts due to her strong support for Gillians transition. But since the divorce was granted, there was no need for appeals or further escalations of the case to higher courts.Looking back on her divorce over fifteen years after it was first filed, Amanda is mostly just glad that its over. It was a lot of fighting with people asking very inappropriate questions, she reflects. It was one of those situations where I know I lived through it, but sometimes Im like, Wow, I wish that had been somebody else. It took me a long time to process it. Lots of therapy.Today, Obergefell does a lot to allow the trans community to live and love freely. Amanda and Gillians case is a way to understand the hurdles that existed for trans people and their partners before the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling came into effect. But their peculiar story is not a unique case. The ACLUs James Esseks, who served as counsel in Obergefell v. Hodges, Bostock v. Clayton County, and many other landmark LGBTQ+ Supreme Court cases, told LGBTQ Nation that he remembered other cases that came up in the years before the Obergefell ruling.Esseks remembered two cases, one from Kansas and one from Texas, where trans women were married to cis men, which resulted in disputes over the marriages validity. In each of those cases, the husband died, and there was a fight over his assets between the wife and the rest of his family.In both these cases, the courts end up saying, These folks arent married because this is a same-sex relationship, and we dont allow same-sex couples to get married. And, you know, it didnt matter that it was actually a straight couple because they didnt recognize the trans people as who they were. In such cases, as with Amanda and Gillians, that issue completely disappears now that marriage equality is the law. Prior to that ruling, laws affected trans peoples freedom to marry the people they loved, whether it was a same gender or opposite gender pairing. The states policy on same-sex marriage and gender marker updates could prevent some people from going through with a transition or force them to carefully time it around entering or leaving a marriage.Today, Obergefell does a lot to allow the trans community to live and love freely. As Esseks points out, Under the rule of Obergefell, basically, sex doesnt matter in terms of who can get married. That means that complexities that might arise for nonbinary people who have X identifiers on their ID (in states that have allowed that update to birth certificates) are a complete non-issue. Similarly, without Obergefell, the current administrations attacks on trans people and their gender markers could have put marriages in jeopardy and opened up whole new legal questions. With Obergefell in place, none of that is a concern.Its a big deal just as a milestone in the journey of LGBTQ people towards greater recognition.James Esseks, ACLU Esseks noted that while he wasnt aware of Obergefell being cited in any trans rights cases, what it stands for is important. Its a big deal just as a milestone in the journey of LGBTQ people towards greater recognition. In essence, winning marriage equality for LGBTQ+ people was part of a step towards greater acceptance of trans people as part of society. This was particularly evident in an anecdote Esseks shared about a conversation he had with Chase Strangio, a trans lawyer and activist who presented oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti last year.Chase and I were both on the legal team for Jim Obergefell, Esseks recounted. The week after Obergefell gets decided in 2015, Chase went to Rikers Island where he had been doing a series of trainings for the staff about trans folks, just because they had a bunch of trans folks in their jail population. And he came back and hes like, Oh my god, I just had the best training I have ever had. People were the most receptive and open that Ive ever had. And he thought that it was at least in part because of Obergefell.The Supreme Court had just said to people, These are people, gay people are people worthy of dignity in our society.And a whole lot of people are not making a big distinction between the trans folks and the gay folks. Were all just, you know, those queers. And so I think its in that more general context that the progress on marriage and progress in Obergefell had, at least for a time, a helpful impact on the trans justice cases and litigations.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.