You don't like gay marriage? Fine. Don't get gay-married. But if you want to have a business and operate in the public sphere, then you've got to treat all your fellow citizens equally. Even better would be to treat each of them as you would wish to be treated. That's a rule that should sound familiar to someone as knowledgeable of the New Testament as Bobby Jindal.
It's becoming hard to remember how difficult the struggle was just a few years ago. America today is in a very different place from 2004, when voters in 13 states amended their state constitutions to exclude us from marriage.
You are on deck, and it's me again. I'm writing both to thank you for taking up a case that might finally grant security to millions of families like mine and to beg you to think about the chaos you are rendering if you fail to do so. Here you are up to bat again. Please make this one count.
I know there are Republican members of the LGBT community. And there are Republican legislators who support equality, albeit not many. Fine, go ahead and throw them a fundraiser they will remember for a long time. But let's not support those who believe we'll burn in hell because of who we are and who we love.
Those of us with our eyes hopeful on the Supreme Court today must realize that the future of LGBTQ rights is bound up with the civil rights and human rights of all people, across town and across the globe.
The Supreme Court decision, when it happens later this year, is quite likely going to set off an argument within the Republican Party -- or, at the very least, that subset of the party who are running for president.
The Republican platform makes several medical claims that shape its policies. Since public health policy should be based on the best scientific and medical evidence, fact-checking these claims is timely.
For the last few weeks commentators, politicians and many sectors of the western public have been perhaps surprised by Vladimir Putin's somewhat reconciliatory tone towards the U.S. and the West.
April 23 was coming-out day. Not for LGBT people, but for a group that hopes to emulate the success of the gay rights movement: agnostics, atheists, humanists and other religion non-believers.
During oral argument, the justices aren't interested in educating the citizenry. The questions and comments fly quickly -- and usually right over most people's heads. To help out, here are five things to look for in Tuesday's oral argument.
The solutions to these problems are clear. As we continue to undertake the lengthy processes of achieving protections under all states' laws, Congress must act now to prohibit discrimination nationwide against LGBT people in all aspects of our lives. The time for equality under the law is now.
Trans visibility might be increasing in everyday society but this trend is not translating to the sports world in the same way it has for LGB players. Out-of-date policies have to be combated, dismantled and replaced with policies that respect transgender identities.
Everyone who transitions does so somewhat publicly, though not all of us have cameras focused on our every move. When we speak of Bruce, hopefully we can remember that Bruce is, at heart, a person, and give him the dignity he is due.
The discussion about whether Bruce Jenner is transitioning has me feeling simultaneously hopeful and deeply uncomfortable. Uncomfortable because, as a daughter of a "transparent," the tabloid tone of ridicule with which the speculation has been presented recalls the cruel words I heard behind my back growing up.
Abortion-rights supporters have no interest in pressuring women into abortions. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is that women need to be supported in making life-changing decisions about their bodies and their future.
The recent events in Indiana and Arkansas prove that a Supreme Court decision bringing marriage for same-sex couples to all parts of the nation won't end political conflict associated with LGBT rights. But it will improve America's families.