I first saw Beth Malone three years ago in a tiny theater in Hell's Kitchen performing a solo show. The actor, who billed herself as "part dude, part lady... all lesbian," examined her life, delivering a witty and affecting tour of America's family dysfunction with its gay children.
Clergy, when acting specifically in that capacity, shouldn't be compelled by government entities or anyone else to perform marriage or other ceremonies that ostensibly violate their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court should require the full recognition of same-sex marriage throughout this country. If the Court rules otherwise, whatever the legal logic, a clear injustice will result. And that injustice would damage the health and welfare of millions of Americans.
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.
Gays and lesbians have been subjected to a long history of invidious discrimination, sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, gays and lesbians have consistently had their interests dismissed and overridden in the political process, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with an individual's ability to perform in society.
I want to caution that for all the drama, excitement, enthusiasm and analysis sparked by the political dimension of the marriage equality debate, there is also a deeply personal dimension that is easy to overlook. It is the collateral damage of systemic homophobia that accelerates when marriage equality is in the news cycle.
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.
The obvious choice for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than America's new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Lynch was finally confirmed by the Senate in a 56-43 vote.
How was this happening all over again? Why did the Governor decide that it was in his power to pick and choose which laws he was going to enforce?
My two dads taught me everything I know about love and family. And now we're ready to show the rest of America what it means, because many people don't realize that marriage bans affect kids and families, not just same-sex couples.
He would also edit my writing, organize my closets and plan adventurous weekends at outer-borough museums and trips to Hindu temples. He was, in short, my dream man. So could a real committed relationship work?
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.
There is a girl in our daughter's class who shares her first name. The two children have been fast friends since kindergarten. They've had sleepovers, played dress-up with each other's costumes, ran through the sprinkler and managed lemonade stands on hot days.
The four marriage cases before the Supreme Court this spring are provoking a complacent response from some in our community who should know better. Once again, their response is not only mistaken, it's dangerous to our rights.
The anti-gay Family Research Council has a new video about how the gays are ruining everything, what with their pesky marrying and buying of cakes and, well, simply existing. And this video isn't just a video -- it's part of a crafty advertising campaign.
I've rounded up the weirdest Supreme Court briefs that argue in favor of preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Some are full of mistakes, others have baffling arguments. And at least one is incredibly sexist, and signed by a member of Congress.