This week, the Republican presidential field is going to double, from three candidates to six. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have all previously officially announced their candidacies, and this week they will be joined by Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.
The National Organization for Marriage has just published a new blog post in which the anti-gay group reveals its plans for 2016. Strangely enough, none of those plans include the most likely scenario: that the organization will cease to exist.
Such an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts would not only strengthen the decision but put into the Supreme Court's toolbox the importance of viewing discrimination against someone on the basis of her sexual orientation as simple sex discrimination. This would help bring "heightened scrutiny" into consideration in future gay-rights cases.
Everyone who believes that Americans are entitled to the full measure of freedom that the Constitution guarantees should resist this case for reflexive judicial restraint, which is profoundly hostile to liberty.
This cultural shift is obviously significant. But where we go from here is just as important. There are 93 million of us in America right now, and as a result, we have the potential to be the most powerful voting bloc in the country. Imagine what we could do if we harnessed that number, and the power that comes with it, into action at the ballot box?
The arc of the moral universe does not bend towards equality -- it bends toward justice. The country is looking to the LGBT movement to see whether we have the will and the tenacity to create a more just and affirming world for everyone. Let's show them we have what it takes.
It is past time for family, friends, lawyers, legal associations and law schools to ask Alito and Scalia to halt and to answer the question "Have you no sense of decency, sirs?"
Over and over again, anti-gay groups have trotted out clergy and chaplains as beleaguered minorities whose rights are being trampled. And over and over again, this line of reasoning intentionally misconstrues the relationship among religion, law and marriage.
Bernie Sanders deserves the Most Impressive Democrat award this week, because he threw his hat in the ring. No, he is not Elizabeth Warren. But, more importantly, he is running to become president, which she is not.
As expected, civil rights legend Mary Bonauto knocked it out of the park for marriage equality. But something bigger was in the air -- a sense that history wasn't just turning but had, in some basic sense, turned.
A few days ago, I stood at the steps of the Supreme Court and shared my story as a queer immigrant in the U.S. Thinking back, the most beautiful moment for me was when my husband said, "I'm an immigrant so I want to share my story in Spanish."
In recent hearings on efforts by state governments to ban same-sex marriages, Supreme Court justices peppered representatives of both sides with quest...
In the past, marriage was primarily about property and procreation whereas today the emphasis is on egalitarian partnership, companionship and love. In the past, the state and most religions did not recognize divorce, remarriage, interracial marriage or the equality of the marriage partners.
In this episode of Nicholas Snow Live, I bring you the complete audio recording of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases.
At the end of the day, the overwhelming emotion we were left with was hope. Hope for a future where all kids can grow up with the simple right to love whomever they love and have that love recognized.
Marriage in the Bible was much more about property rights, ensuring paternity of offspring, succession, political alliances and tribal stability than it was about companionship, mutual support and affection as we think of marriage today.