TAMPA, Fla. (WFTS) — In a cozy home nestled in the heart of Tampa, a simple ballpoint pen sits behind glass. a piece of history framed and hung on the wall. For Mark Bias-West and Carrie West, that pen represents the moment they helped make history as the first same-sex couple to sign a domestic partnership with the city of Tampa back in 2012.
“Well, we are,” Carrie said proudly when asked if they were Tampa’s first same-sex domestic partners. “We signed the domestic partnership for the City of Tampa. We helped put it together, and that was one of the first things out there. We did it, and we got pictures of that in the offices."
Watch full report from Jada Williams
Their framed pen and documentation aren’t just memorabilia. They’re symbols of a hard-won fight.
“This just isn’t like, ‘Okay, you guys are together and that’s it,’” Carrie said. “This is making a major change in the way the county represents and the way the city is representing the people in the LGBT+ community in Hillsborough County and in Tampa. This was big. This is big news. We were very happy.”
In 2012, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Florida. But the couple believed change had to start locally.
“We kind of pioneered a lot of different things out there,” Carrie said. “We wanted to work with Hillsborough County in getting that done. That’s kind of the first steps of getting equal marriage.”
They didn't stop there.
“We went up to Washington, D.C., and protested for equal marriage,” Carrie continued. “We went all across the country and throughout the state of Florida, making sure people realized that was really an effort. And we did that around 2012. Then we started saying, we need to have this in the state of Florida — but we also have to have it first in our county, in our city.”
The domestic partnership registry they fought for helped pave the way for broader recognition. In 2023, Carrie and Mark were legally married.
Fears Resurface Amid Supreme Court Uncertainty
Today, more than a decade after signing that first registry, Carrie and Mark are watching closely as legal and political winds shift.
The couple is deeply concerned about what could happen if the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that challenges Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
“The Supreme Court is… I don't want to say unpredictable, but it is,” Carrie said. “We don’t know exactly how their way of thinking is, and remember, we don’t even know what the powers be, who pays for the Supreme Court justices anymore. It’s not the way it used to be.”
“It’s not a fair, balanced justice system anymore in the United States,” he added.
When asked if he feared his own marriage could be in jeopardy, Carrie didn’t hesitate.
“That is very true,” he said. “Once you start going through there, it’s going to be just like Clarence Thomas and his wife going through biracial or any kind of situation that would be defining and saying, ‘Guess what? You are not now legally married.’”
He believes such moves would open a “can of worms” across the country, creating chaos and confusion, not just for same-sex couples, but for anyone relying on what has long been considered settled law.
“I think it’s just going to put the progress of the Supreme Court in going through the Constitution,” Carrie said. “I believe it’s going to be very heavy on the courts, very heavy on the legislature. And I don’t believe if you read the Supreme Court rulings, what this is in the Constitution. This is meant for all people, for all beings. Everybody’s being equal. And that’s the way that they decided upon what the justices said it should be.”
Legal Experts Weigh In: The Case at Hand
The couple's concern is tied to the legal battle involving Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. Davis is now asking the Supreme Court to take up her appeal, arguing that being required to issue licenses violated her religious freedom.
“This is a case about Kim Davis,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University College of Law. “She’s been litigating for around a decade, trying to argue that somehow this discriminates against her, and not the other way around,” Torres-Spelliscy added.
Professor Torres-Spelliscy says the Supreme Court is highly selective about what cases it hears, and that the Davis case may not present the strongest vehicle for overturning Obergefell.
“We don’t know whether they’re going to take the case at all,” Torres-Spelliscy said. “If they do, they might not take up her invitation to overrule Obergefell.”
Even if the court did, there’s another layer of protection.
“After the Dobbs decision, the one that overturned Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects interracial and same-sex marriages at the federal level,” she explained. “So even if the Supreme Court got rid of Obergefell, there is still protection that is statutory from Congress.”
Still, she warned that rights based on substantive due process, the same constitutional principle that underpinned Roe and Obergefell, are vulnerable, especially given Justice Clarence Thomas’s written opinion urging the Court to revisit those rulings.
“If we take Justice Thomas seriously, then all of these rights are up for grabs,” she said. “That includes interracial marriage, same-sex intimacy, and even birth control.”
A Precedent Under Pressure
James Fox, also a law professor at Stetson, said the roots of today’s uncertainty lie in the narrow 5-4 nature of the Obergefell decision.
“Because that was a one-vote majority, it’s inherently at risk,” Fox said. “Now, only two of the justices in the majority: Kagan and Sotomayor, are still on the court.”
He said the concern about Obergefell being overturned is legitimate; just maybe not by this case.
“Ms. Davis has not done well in litigation so far,” Fox said. “In 2020, she asked for Supreme Court review and did not get it. One of the judges in this most recent ruling was a Trump appointee. The judge who wrote it was a George W. Bush appointee. There’s a pretty consistent history of courts, including the Supreme Court, saying no in this case.”
Fox explained that Davis’s legal defense is based partly on religious freedom arguments, including a First Amendment claim that she had the right not to issue marriage licenses. While the lower courts dismissed those arguments, he said that type of claim is likely to return in future cases.
“The court has been receptive to trying to balance free exercise of religion claims against the rights of same-sex couples,” Fox said. “And I think that’s the tension. Where you have two constitutional claims in opposition to each other. I think that’s where you're likely to see the court, in the next five years or so, start to recognize some limitations on same-sex marriage.”
Still, Fox emphasized that he does not believe Obergefell is in immediate danger.
“I don’t think this case is a reason for people in same-sex marriages to feel that there’s any risk,” he said. “But a future case might come up where the court starts to consider some of these arguments. It’s something to watch closely.”
A Legacy That Still Matters
For Carrie West and Mark Bias-West, the worry is more than legal — it’s personal. The fight they started years ago wasn’t just about paperwork or government recognition. It was about being seen. Being equal.
“This is what we think of the community,” Carrie said. “This is what we think of the neighbors. This is how we treat the people around us throughout the whole area.”
That pen still hangs on their wall. A symbol. A first. And, they hope, not the last word.
Parents weigh in on Florida’s new cellphone ban for K-8 students
Florida's K-8 cellphone ban in schools draws mixed reactions from parents concerned about safety, distractions, and staying connected during the school day.
