I remember that October day so clearly. It was 1987, the day of the second great LGBTQ march on Washington - and the first time I'd found myself with so many others like me. Seas of ... us.
For the duration of our relationship, Patrick and I had no siblings, parents, or offspring; we were each other's only family. And I grew up as an only child. Now I am starting over at the age of 62. I will feel this, all of it.
It is our duty to future generations of LGBTQ people to not rest on our laurels of steadily advancing poll numbers, legislative and court gains, but to press our advantage now for the greatest possible gains.
Our children know that for a few months in 2008, the law said "yes" to their family. Their moms are legally married (in California, at least). This legal recognition echoes and enforces what their moms and their community keep telling them: that we should be treated equally.
I remember waking up the morning after Prop 8 passed wondering how this is possible and questioning why people didn't know better. How is it that a 17-year-old can see what some adults cannot seem to? That love makes a family.
Apparently, in a lot of ignorant people's minds, if you come out in support of same-sex marriage, you're just straight up "coming out," and that's really stupid.
During preliminary questioning in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Sotomayer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer, the center-liberal wing on the Supreme Court, focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing.
Despite having strong political and religious feelings about the issue, how are opponents "harmed" by same-sex couples getting married -- and having their relationship recognized by the law?
How, one might ask, can some of the legislators most vocal about the benefits of marriage and children want to deny marriage and children to a certain group?
So as my family progresses across the choppy emotional sea of social change, though I still face resistance every time I meet up with pain, instead of ignoring the hurt, I'm trying to make space for it.
If California's marriage equality ban is unconstitutional, the brief implicitly argued, then these other seven states' bans -- Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island -- likely are as well.
even though it doesn't explicitly say so, Verrilli's brief clearly provides a framework for what is becoming known as the "eight-state solution".
While Solicitor General Verrilli's brief stopped short of a sweeping call for a constitutional right to marriage equality across the nation, the argument it does make is both judicious and full of dramatic implications.
In places where anti-gay-marriage sentiment is still strong, what do you think will happen with hostility in the workplace and on the street in the face of five or six Supreme Court justices ruling that an 1866 amendment to the constitution now suddenly gives gays the right to marry?
If the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage generally, it will do what it hastily did in Roe: It will force the recognition of a controversial right on a large number of states, not just on extreme outliers, exposing itself and the LGBT rights movement to a public backlash.