Cookie Johnson, the wife of legendary NBA player Earvin “Magic” Johnson, opened up about her journey towards acceptance of her gay son E.J. Johnson, the star of E's #RichKids of Beverly Hills, in an interview.

Johnson reveals how prayer guided her towards love and acceptance in her memoir, Believing in Magic: My Story of Love, Overcoming Adversity, and Keeping the Faith. The book, which came out September 20,  also includes details into the moment Cookie first learned of her husband's HIV diagnosis nearly 25 years ago. 

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey for OWN's Super Soul Sunday, Johnson spoke about how she reconciled her Christian faith with having a gay son.

“That was a very hard thing for me,” Johnson tells Winfrey. “So, I had to pray about it.” 

Johnson says that the message she received from God when she prayed was love.  And that love allowed her to make peace with having a gay son.  "This child is innocent,” says Johnson. "He was like this when he was a baby, it can’t be wrong." 

Acceptance of LGBT youth by their parents is critical to current and future mental health, and lack of acceptance can negatively affect everything from school performance to general well-being.  

And even worse, some LGBT youth who are rejected by their families are at a higher risk of becoming homeless.  

Johnson says it wasn’t easy for her or her husband to accept the news at first, but that they were both quickly in his corner. And they now admit that the elder Johnson's initial reaction wasn’t the best.  

“I had to come to realize this is who he really is, and he’s gonna be happy,” Magic Johnson told ABC News’ Robin Roberts in a televised interview. 

After first telling his son that he wasn’t happy with him being gay, the elder Johnson says he went back the next day and apologized to his child, telling Roberts that as his father, he questioned why he was judging his son. 

"I knew he was looking for me to accept who he was, and I had to get out of my own way,” said the basketball legend.  

Watch a clip of Johnson's interview with Oprah below.

How E.J. Johnson's Mom Learned to Accept Her Gay Son

Christian Parents Outraged at Trans Locker Room Policy at Ill. School

Christian Parents Outraged at New Trans Locker Room Policy at Illinois School 

My 4-year-old twin daughters like to hum Katy Perry. That’s because my husband listens to pop stars while driving home. It’s cute when a preschooler with pigtails is singing “Firework.” Not as cute when they’re worried about Donald Trump.

Everyone knows to be careful what you say within earshot. To communicate with my husband about sensitive topics, we long ago became those people who spell “I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M,” which is triggering for children.

But talking about the election at the dinner table gets especially treachorous. After that filthy tape of Trump bragging about sexual harassment, my husband and I vaguely exchanged astonishments.

“What did Donald Trump say?” asked Audrey, sitting on her knees on the bench.

She caught me by surprise — first, because I didn’t think she was listening, and second, because she really wanted an answer. Those big brown eyes looked up at me with sincere concern.

I couldn’t tell her a candidate for president talked about hurting women. She’s already aware that growing up will make her a woman. I’ll break it to her, one day, that women are paid 70 cents on the dollar and rapists aren’t punished. For now I want the world to seem absolutely filled with possibilities.

So I told Audrey that whatever Trump said couldn’t be repeated, that it was something naughty her father would never say.

Audrey assumed he’d said “what the heck” — which is admittedly a high bar set solely so we can make a point about bad language. The girls will one day be allowed more idiomatic outbursts, but for now, even an errant “what the heck” is a useful chance to explain that some expressions are considered impolite. We talk about why it hurts people’s feelings to “hate” and that it’s important to “include people.” From there, I’ve somehow engendered a Hillary Clinton voter.

“I hope Donald Trump doesn’t win,” Audrey told the table.

That surprised me too. My husband gave me that silent look that says, Well, that’s a new one. 

It always troubled me whenever kids spouted opinions that are beyond their years. Kids are too easily influenced, so having political views always struck me as evidence of manipulation.

Then came Donald Trump. And I learned that parents can’t avoid discussions about American values when they’re so constantly challenged. Someone is going to teach your kids principles, and I don’t want to leave the job for the likes of Trump.

It was the first question of the debate on Sunday: “The last debate could have been rated as MA, mature audiences, per TV parental guidelines,” said Patrice Brock, holding the microphone during the town hall. She noted that some kids were probably tuned in because they’d been assigned debate-watching as homework.

I was watching for work. But I remember joining my parents in the living room to take in the presidential debates back when it was Bill Clinton behind the podium. It’s probably a factor in how I wound up a journalist, with elections fostering my inclination to argue and care about issues.

Brock asked the candidates whether they are “modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth.”

The short answer to that question is “no.” We live in California, so the debate started at 6 p.m., which is after dinner but before bedtime for our girls. As I was at home live-tweeting and taking notes for my column, my husband kept the girls safely cloistered upstairs in their bedroom watching The Nut Job— which is a movie starring Will Arnett as an animated squirrel, not a euphemism for the debate.

I caught myself virtually holding my breath throughout the 90 minutes of back-and-forth, because it was so tense, because Bill Clinton’s accusers were in the audience, and because I wanted to close the curtains and keep the entire rest of the civilized world from observing what felt like needed to be a private moment among Americans. At any turn, someone might accuse a former president of rape, or note Trump saying he wants to “grab them by the pussy.” The whole thing was gross.

The Trump strategy appeared to be humiliating Hillary Clinton. Three women who say they had sex with her husband looked on in the audience, even as her daughter was seated on the other end of the room. Millions watched her every move on television. He threatened to put her in jail, called her the "devil," pointing his finger and saying "shame." Clinton kept her composure, though, despite Donald Trump lurking a few feet behind during any answer to the audience.

I don’t want Donald Trump as president for the same reason I scan the Spotify playlist in the car. You have to skip the not-safe-for-children songs marked “expletive.” Or race to hit the power-off button when you realize we’re not listening to Taylor Swift anymore.

Hillary Clinton had mentioned Michelle Obama’s speech made to the Democratic National Convention for its “When they go low, we go high” enjoinder. But as I heard the girls squealing with laughter about a cartoon, I was already thinking about that speech because of the first lady’s warning about Trump corrupting our children.

“This election, and every election, is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives,” she said to applause. “And I am here tonight because in this election, there is only one person who I trust with that responsibility.”

LUCAS GRINDLEY is editorial director for Here Media. Contact him @lucasgrindley.

Donald Trump Is NSFC (Not Safe for Children)

The Arkansas Supreme Court today struck down a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed married same-sex couples to have both spouses listed as parents on their children’s birth certificates without obtaining a court order.

Justice Josephine Linker Hart, writing for the court’s majority, cited what she called “basic biological truths” in overturning Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox’s 2015 ruling, the Associated Press reports.

“In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has,” Hart wrote. “It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”

Cheryl Maples, the attorney for three same-sex couples in the case, said that sets a different standard than the one applied to straight couples. “There’s no requirement that DNA be given or that there be a biological relationship to a child to get on a birth certificate for a father, for the non-birth parent,” she told the AP. “All you have to do is legitimize the child and you’re entitled, if you’re heterosexual. This is wrong.”

Maples said she hasn’t decided whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the AP reports.

In November 2015, Fox ruled that because the state recognizes same-sex marriages, the couples were automatically entitled to have both their names listed on their children’s birth certificates. The Arkansas Health Department’s Vital Statistics Bureau had told them they would have to get a court order to be listed, although there is generally no such requirement for opposite-sex couples.

Fox initially applied his ruling only to the three couples who brought the case, but he said he would issue an order broadening it to apply to all same-sex couples in Arkansas. However, a few days after the decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court put it on hold, saying it could lead to confusion and uncertainty. The couples in the suit were all allowed to obtain birth certificates with both parents’ names. Not having both names on the birth certificate can lead to problems with matters such as taking out health insurance or even being allowed to pick up a child at school.

In her ruling today, Hart admonished Fox for “inappropriate remarks” in his decision. “The gist of Judge Fox’s remarks was that if this court granted the stay, then it would deprive persons of their constitutional rights, and that this court previously had deprived people of their constitutional rights in a separate matter,” she wrote. His statement, she said, violated the state’s code of judicial conduct because it could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The Human Rights Campaign denounced Hart’s ruling. “It is clear that including both married spouses’ names — regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite sex — on a child’s birth certificate is exactly the kind of benefit of marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled should be extended to same-sex couples,” said HRC senior legislative counsel Kate Oakley in a press release. “This disappointing ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court is a clear violation of equal protection for married, same-sex couples, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, and it is a deliberate attempt to undermine the rights of couples who have been guaranteed equality under the law when it comes to marriage.”

During the holidays each year, we take time to reflect on and acknowledge all of the good in our lives, to map out our aspirations for the coming year and to spend time with our family and friends. For my family, the 2016 holiday season will be one for the books. Just last month, my husband, Rich, and I legally adopted our two sons, Jude and Jonny, and we’re proud to say that we are officially a family.

While I am sure the boys are looking forward to Santa, presents, no school, and all of the delights that the holidays bring, I am simply looking forward to being together. In the short time the boys have been with us, they have brought more joy into our lives than we ever thought possible, and we cannot wait to celebrate as a new family.

My husband and I first began thinking about adoption in 2013 when we moved to a new and diverse neighborhood — one with many adopted children. We had a home and two rescue dogs, and if we wanted to start a family, we thought, there was no better place to do it. As we discussed what we wanted, neither of us were convinced we needed to raise a baby, so going through the state and foster care system was the direction for us. All we wanted was to help a child or two who were stuck in the system and needed a good home — something we knew we could provide.

With eager hearts, we started out on our path to adoption and obtained the necessary licenses. While we had received many calls over the months, nothing felt like the right fit. Finally, after much anticipation, we received a call in late November of 2015 about two boys who were 6 and 7 at the time. Next thing you know, Rich and I met Jude and Jonny, and we quickly realized that these were the kids for us. They were perfect. They moved in, we switched their school, and we all started living our lives as a family. The year had its moments, but as we showed them love, structure, and protection, they started to ease into our family. And sooner than we anticipated, the biological parents surrendered rights for the boys to us, which allowed us to adopt them on National Adoption Day, last month.

I admit it hasn’t been an easy process over the past year. For starters, Jude and Jonny were initially required to have weekly visits with their biological parents and siblings. This, coupled with adjusting to an unfamiliar home, was no easy situation. But luckily for me, and thanks in large part to my employer, Bank of America, I have been able to spend quality time with the boys to help them through this confusing process.

Bank of America’s generous parental leave policies, including those for adoptive and LGBTQ parents, have in a sense given me the gift of time, allowing me to help the boys settle into their new lives. When we first enrolled Jude and Johnny in school, for instance, the transition was challenging — they were not only in a new home but in a new community and school, with new teachers and classmates. But with my free time, I was able to volunteer during lunch, in the library, and even attend school field trips so I could help them adjust and build friendships with the other students. This quality time, before and after school, allowed me to bond with Jude and Johnny in a way that wouldn’t have been possible if I had to be in the office every day.

While many companies are evaluating and strengthening their parental leave policies, I strongly encourage all employers to consider following suit. The time I have been able to spend with Jude and Johnny — getting to know them, helping them to adjust, and building father-son relationships — has been invaluable. Without this time, I am not sure that the process would have gone as smoothly as it did or that we would be where we are as a family today.

What’s more, some employers don’t stop at parental leave. For example, Bank of America also offers various reimbursements for adoption and child care fees, 24/7 employee assistance, and counseling and unlimited information and resources through its Parents & Caregivers Network. While I have yet to take advantage of reimbursements, I’m grateful that these options are available. These policies have not only made the adoption process easier for both me and Rich, they’ve also shown just how much my employer cares about me and my family, outside of the workplace.

Having these policies tells existing and potential employees that their employer is going to be with them every step of the way along their personal journeys. In fact, these programs are a compelling way for companies to attract and retain top talent.

I feel lucky to work for a company that values me and has given me the opportunity to spend much-needed time bonding with my new family. This is why I think more employers should consider giving families that kind of support — because when you work for a living, it is great to know your work is rooting for you, in your corner, helping you to reach your personal goals too.

ARDEN CANECCHIA lives in New Jersey with his family.

Robbie Rogers and Greg Berlanti Are Engaged

Last year on a lazy Saturday, as I lounged on the couch watching Steel Magnolias for the 20th time with my sleeping daughter cuddled besids me, I received the following terse text from my husband:

“She’s yours.”

Along with this message from my spouse came a screen shot of our DNA test results, listing a side-by-side breakdown of our genetic make-up. Our daughter and I had an accuracy match of 99.99996 percent.

My first thought was to respond with a droll “Well, there’s a .00004 percent chance she isn’t mine.”

Thankfully, I refrained.

I knew that for my sweet, devoted man this revelation was a painful reminder that his treasured little girl wasn’t his. At least she wasn’t his by blood. While she was his daughter within the framework of our family unit, she wasn’t his direct offspring. She wasn’t the fruit of his loins.

For him, this result was akin to being reduced to being somehow less than I was. He feared the day would come when she would suddenly love him differently because they were not tied together forever via their genes. While he understood in his head that this was foolish — she is and always would be his daughter — he was unprepared for how the disappointment would hit his heart.

I doubt this response would have been an issue had we adopted, as we sought to do before we went the surrogacy route. With adoption we would have gone into the world of parenthood equally, knowing we’d be on a level parental playing field, since neither of us would be concerned with genetic parentage. In adoption we’d both be the child’s father without ever having to consider that one of us would be “more related” to the child than the other.

Three years ago, when we learned that only one of the two inseminated embryos — one fertilized with each of our DNA — we placed within the womb of our wonderful surrogate would eventually become our daughter, I knew we had an emotional ticking time bomb on our hands. This one amazing embryo would grow to become half of me or half of him, leaving the other outside the DNA loop.  

Originally, I didn’t even want to contribute my, ahem, genetic sample, as passing on my genes to a child wasn’t a driving force in my life. I mean, my DNA wasn’t something I was particularly proud of. (I wrote about my dilemma here.) My husband, however, longed for a child of his own, one who would be part and partial of his long, proud lineage. He felt the need to reproduce, the need to continue his family heritage.

Perhaps one of the driving forces behind his desire for a child of his own stemmed from the social aspect of gay parenthood. His family had a difficult time with his homosexuality (they are all devout Mormons), his relationship with me, our marriage, and our hope of becoming parents. For him, I think, having a kid linked to his family would somehow legitimize our union. It would be the key to full acceptance.

Apart from this, in the past three years since my wonderful daughter’s birth we’ve learned that there’s also an unexpected, deeply stinging side effect to a same-sex couple being parents. Once we reveal that we had our daughter via surrogacy the constant, “Well, which of you is the real father?” question packs a painful, emotional wallop.

The identification of our child’s biological makeup is a surprisingly important and vital conversation piece to the people we encounter on a daily basis.

While we both understand that this seemly innocuous question from curious extended family members, distant friends, and random chitchatters isn’t meant to hurt or incite a personal crisis, it still wounds us. It hangs heavy in the air between us. A loaded question rife with cheerful dismissal.

“Who is the father?” carries with it a powerfully implied notion that only one of has the right to claim her as our child, based on our genetic relation. As though the DNA of our child is the only thing that validates a person’s place as that child’s father.

I may be mistaken, but straight couples don’t, or rarely, face this underlined, unspoken judgment. If a straight couple is seen with a child it’s inherently assumed that both adults are the child’s rightful parent.

If a child looks different from the male and the female adults — say, the child is of a different race than the mother and father — there is still an automatic legitimacy awarded that couple. It’s quickly understood that the child is likely adopted and this woman and man are the child’s rightful parents.

Yet with same-sex parents there is always a social and cultural battle to justify a parent’s right to be called that child’s father (or mother). When random people say, “Oh, you guys got a baby!” or “How long have you had her?” we are put in a situation where we have to explain our history, our position, and our role as parents. (Hey, I wrote about this odd gay parent phenomenon here.)

It’s as though we must constantly defend and define our fatherhood simply because one of us is not a mother. As though we’ve entered into a cultural parental thunderdome: Two gay parents enter, but only one can seize the title of father!

This, of course, is utterly and completely ridiculous.

Back to that Saturday. I remember staring blankly at the cold, emotionless text that conveyed so much in its simple message. Then, in a flick of inspiration my two index fingers whirled across my phone sending the following response — which I proudly paraphrase from something my dear, colorful sister once said to me: “Blood relation doesn’t mean shit. It’s being there daily, taking care of the kid, loving the kid, that qualifies someone as a parent. Not a person’s stupid sperm.”

Moments later he walked into the room, having returned from his morning errands. I greeted him at the door and we laughed a bit over the term “stupid sperm.” We embraced. We cried. I kissed his eyelids (not sure why, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time) and reminded him that he is our — yes, our— daughter’s father. Period. End of discussion.

Besides, I reminded him, on her birth certificate it clearly lists him under “father.” You’ll find my name under “mother.” So, you know, ’nuff said.

My spouse’s broken heart has healed quite a bit since that revelation. His lovely family has also embraced us as a couple, as parents, and as a family. Our child not sharing their genes has never blocked or poisoned their devotion to her. She is their family. It is truly a wonderful, wonderful thing.

I hope my husband feels just how much our little girl emulates and adores him. They have a special, unique relationship that I admire and am so grateful for.

I’m thankful that I have such a loving, kind husband who stays home with our daughter not because he has to but because he utterly and completely loves it. He adores her. I thrill at how our sweet daughter belly laughs with him, how they run and play, how they sing and dance together. I delight in his fatherhood.

Because a true, wonderful, generous father like my husband is rare, and for that I am eternally grateful.

BRIAN ANDERSEN is a writer and indie comic book creator who lives in San Francisco with his husband and gorgeous daughter. 

I like to consider myself a very masculine man in the traditional sense of the word. I lift weights; I watch college football; I sport a solid patch of chest hair that I flaunt as if it’s going out of style; I order steak and chicken in my Chipotle bowls; and I enjoy reading about men’s men like Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Ernest Hemingway. I wish I could say my job is the pinnacle of my manly exploits, but it’s not.

I’m a "manny"— a male nanny. Yes, seriously. As I'm a budding filmmaker, I like that it offers me a flexible schedule in between film projects, and between us, the pay ain’t half bad either. It’s also given me a lot of new perspective.

I take care of two adopted boys, Angel, 5, and Nico, 7. Their father, Calvin, adopted them this past June by way of the foster adoption process. Calvin runs his own PR consultancy, and from what I’ve gathered, he works on diverse projects such as helping Nissan at LGBT events and assisting Los Angeles County with its HIV prevention outreach. In other words, he’s busy. And being a single parent, he needed help.

I accepted this opportunity because I knew it was going to be different and challenging. Not only that, but I would have a chance to help out kids in need.

After a year with a high-net-worth family in Beverly Hills, I was ready for a different family. And somehow I found them — Calvin (or “Papi,” as the kids call him) is a biracial (half Mexican and half white) single gay dad; the boys are also Latino. In our time spent together, I’ve learned that Modern Family has nothing on us. 

You may think to label me a homophobe or antigay, but working for a single gay man made me nervous at first. I didn’t know how I was going to handle myself. Coming from a suburban Catholic family, attending private Catholic schools, thereafter attending the University of Michigan, I had always thought myself open-minded. I had gay friends; gay guys hit on me with relative frequency (to be perfectly honest, it’s quite flattering); and I have always believed people should love whom they love.

I must admit, my life was and to a slight extent still is like a James Franco–Seth Rogen movie, filled with gay jokes and raunchy humor, but hey, that’s kind of how you’re bred when you attend an all-boys high school, where the primary joke is, “Dude, don’t be gay, show me your dick.”

As I sat in my interview with Calvin, I knew that this was going to be an opportunity for me to grow as a person because of the preconceived notions I had about this situation. I had never handled foster kids. I thought that these kids were going to be messed up, with all types of problems, just like in every movie and TV show. I asked myself, How are they going to grow up well-balanced with a single gay dad and a straight male nanny, with no feminine presence to speak of? What type of parent would this guy be, seeing as he learned from parenting classes that the county made him take?

This opportunity was out of my comfort zone and also something I knew deep down I needed.

I don’t believe there has been a more rewarding moment in my time with this family than the day the boys and Calvin became a “forever family” — adoption day.

The ceremony lasted no more than 10 minutes. Calvin’s friends, family, business acquaintances, and pretty much anybody else who had met the boys in their time with him flooded the spectator area. As the judge went through her final proceedings with Calvin, the boys colored a picture — not quite understanding the magnitude of what was happening. Calvin sat there holding back his emotions as he signed the final paperwork. With a final stroke of the pen, there they were, a forever family, sealed with a kiss on the cheek that was met with resistance just as every other kiss from Papi had been before.

There was something so powerful in this moment. Everything I had known about a family — a married mom and dad who were my biological parents, who gave me so much unconditional love — was suddenly so incredibly apparent in this little family of three.

As my time has carried on with the boys, my sense of this being a true family has been confirmed. I don’t think I’ve ever even questioned if this was different from the traditional nuclear family. Calvin is a dedicated, loving father, and Angel and Nico are hilarious, mischievous little boys.

We are a family. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I am so grateful that they have let me be a part of it.  

Since I started with this family back in April, I’ve seen a change in myself. I wanted to help these kids out, just as I have with all of the past nanny jobs I had applied for, but this one felt special to me. This one I believed would present new challenges. I thought I was going to have to find ways to get them to speak or have a “Paul on the road to Damascus” moment in which they would open up all of their emotional wounds to me, leading them to the light and turning them into these incredible people. A Lifetime movie at its finest. None of that has taken place.

I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be someone special to them. I can look at myself and know that I can check those off my ego list. What I’ve become is a guy who watches kids for a dad who is running his own business. One day, I plan on having a family of my own, just like my parents and just like Calvin. Knowing that I provided support and guidance to the foster adoption process is a bonus and something I would encourage everyone to do, whether it is through volunteering or fostering. Family is family, no matter what ways they are formed. The love that is there is the only thing that matters.

There has not been a job that’s been more aggravating, more soul-crushing, or more rewarding than this job I’ve had with these two wonderful little dudes. Sometimes when I come home, I wonder if this is what I should be doing, if the constant battles at every turn throughout the day are worth it. Then I realize, this is how normal life with kids functions. Day after day, rain or shine, whether they love me that day or not, I’m there for them because that’s what you do when you’re part of a family. That’s a lesson in manliness no other job can teach you.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which is already set to hear a case on transgender student rights next month, may be hearing another LGBT rights case in the near future.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and private attorneys have asked the high court to hear a case from Arkansas in which the state refused to automatically list both same-sex parents on birth certificates for children conceived through donor insemination, NCLR announced today. In 2015, a judge in Pulaski County found in favor of the couples who sued to have their names listed, but late last year the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned that ruling, so today the couples’ lawyers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether the high court takes the case remains to be seen, but the lawyers say the Arkansas ruling violated the law as set down in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must be treated the same as other couples in all aspects of marriage, including birth and death certificates.

“If allowed to stand, the Arkansas Supreme Court’s refusal to follow Obergefell will invite officials in other states to do the same,” NCLR legal director Shannon Minter said in a press release. “Rather than treating married same-sex couples and their children equally, as Obergefell requires, this ruling marginalizes these families and deprives them of the security that marriage is intended to provide. We are asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to this dangerous development and send a clear message to other states that Obergefell meant what it said.”

Under Arkansas law, if a woman with a male spouse gives birth to a child conceived through donor insemination, her husband is automatically listed as a parent on the birth certificate. But birth mothers with female spouses were told they must obtain a court order to have both parents listed.

In the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, Justice Josephine Linker Hart, writing for the court’s majority, cited what she called “basic biological truths.” “In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has,” Hart wrote. “It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”

That did not sit well with the couples or their attorneys. “To permit states to pick and choose which marital protections married same-sex couples and their children may enjoy, based on the same rationales used to justify their exclusion from marriage in the past, would undermine this Court’s precedent and return these families to a caste-like position of official stigma and disfavor,” the petition to the high court argues.

NCLR is joined in the case by Arkansas attorney Cheryl Maples and the firm of Ropes & Gray. The petition was filed by Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Supreme Court partner at Ropes & Gray, who argued Obergefell before the court.

“It is clear that Obergefell confers on married same-sex couples not just some, but all, rights given to married opposite-sex couples as a consequence of their marriage, including the important right to be legally recognized as parents to their children,” Hallward-Driemeier said in the NCLR release.

The named plaintiffs in the case, Pavan v. Smith, are two couples: Marisa and Terrah Pavan, and Leigh and Jana Jacobs. A third couple was involved in the original case but is not part of the Supreme Court petition. The respondent is Nathaniel Smith, director of the Arkansas Department of Health, which is in charge of birth certificates.

Even Donald Trump knows that “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.” Yet Trump has vowed to defund the women’s health organization nationwide, buoyed by the widespread false claim that taxpayer dollars through Medicaid are going toward the group’s abortion services.
 
If President Trump wants to know the impact that defunding Planned Parenthood would have on millions of Americans, he only has to turn to Vice President Mike Pence, who saw the damaging consequences of his own effort to defund the health care provider in Indiana.
 
As would be the case nationally, residents of Indiana’s underserved communities suffered the most when the state’s GOP targeted its Planned Parenthood clinics. When Indiana Republicans imposed health cuts that forced Planned Parenthood to close five of its clinics in the state, none of which offered abortion services, they shut down some of the few places where many people could access services like HIV testing. The effect was disastrous. The Planned Parenthood clinic in rural Scott County, for example, was the county’s only HIV testing center. After its closure, HIV cases climbed dramatically as the county’s drug epidemic escalated. Only after intense public pressure — and prayer — did Pence reluctantly approve a needle-exchange program to help stem the rise in HIV in his state.
  
Trump can also ask his new Cabinet member Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, about his state's war on women’s health. Texas saw a rise in pregnancy-related deaths and health complications after state Republicans succeeded in closing over 80 family planning clinics, including many operated by Planned Parenthood, through steep health care cuts. Counties affected by the closures witnessed a rise in unplanned pregnancies.
 
Another Texas law, later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, shut down many abortion clinics across the state. Rather than end abortion, it forced women to turn to less safe options, such as self-induced abortions, including the use of drugs purchased in Mexico. (President Trump warned ominously during his presidential campaign that women might have to go to “illegal places” if he succeeds in ending legal abortion).
 
One study of family planning cuts in Texas and Wisconsin, the latter enacted by “pro-life” Gov. Scott Walker, found that women’s health and family planning clinic closures had a negative impact on preventative health care. The clinic closures in the two states led to decreases in women receiving clinical breast exams, mammograms, and Pap tests, with larger than average declines among women with only a high school diploma or less.
 
In Louisiana, Republicans likewise went after the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics even though they didn’t offer abortion services, recommending instead that women look to dentists, dermatologists, and audiologists for family planning services.
 
One religious right group has even suggested that, in lieu of Planned Parenthood, women try to get health care at public schools and nursing homes.
 
Planned Parenthood reports that of the people who use its services, “79 percent had incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level,” and many are already facing severe obstacles to health care access. Women of color, low-income women, and women living in rural areas would bear the brunt of the proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood; too many would be left with nowhere else to turn. A longtime supporter of the LGBTQ community, Planned Parenthood has also been a place that many queer women and men rely on.
 
The women who would lose access to Planned Parenthood would face even more hurdles if Republicans successfully repeal the Affordable Care Act, which could cause millions to lose their health insurance and hospitals to close, and enact severe cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, which could make it even harder for people to find alternatives to Planned Parenthood.
 
Trump said that, as president, he “would be the best for women” and “the best for women’s health issues.” Instead, he’s starting out his presidency by promising to target the health care of those who already have the fewest options.
 

I’m 40. Older than Alan Thicke was as the father of three when Growing Pains started. Older than Michael Gross was when he played Michael J. Fox’s father on Family Ties. James Avery, who played the wise Uncle Phil on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, was 45 when the series premiered. Only five years older. I could legit be Uncle Phil’s younger brother. Well, kinda.

These are the shows I loved in my youth. The ones I watched after school and when my parents went out with friends and my babysitter Jeena came to watch me, with her hair dyed pink like Cyndi Lauper's.  Now I’m older than the parents in those programs.

In one of my favorite episodes of Sex and the City, Kristen Johnson played Lexi Featherson, an aging “party girl” who looks into the mirror after snorting a line of coke and says to Carrie, “I’m 40 years old, Carrie. Can you fucking believe it?” Take away the coke and some other details, and I can totally relate to Lexi. Lately, I’ve looked in the mirror and thought to … I’m 40? I can’t #*@#* believe it. I barely feel like an adult.

I am single and gay. I rent my apartment. I have no kids. There’s nothing in this life that grounds me as an adult save the fact that I have a job. And while this fact has faintly crossed my mind here and there, it’s never really planted firmly in my brain the way it does these days.

Ever since I graduated college, I’ve been running fast in New York. From starting my career to meeting new friends to coming out of the closet, etc. — I have hardly had the chance to slow down for a period of introspection. It wasn’t until I was at a 40th birthday party in Chicago for an old college friend when I found myself standing still at a pivotal moment in my journey — enough time behind me to take stock of where I am but with time left ahead to course correct. 

It was there that I ran into another friend of mine who I hadn’t seen in years. We grew up together and went to the same college, forging a closeness with and understanding of each other that neither time nor personal differences had broken. We immediately began catching up and started joking around as we always did, and at one point he mentioned wanting to meet for brunch the next day. He just had to drop his son off at Hebrew School first. 

I didn’t expect such a mundane statement to trigger something in me, and I can assure you, neither did my friend, but, well, it did. And in the middle of an '80s party, under the soft glow of a neon light, with friends I hadn’t seen in 18 years dressed in track suits, miniskirts, and teased hair all around me, and with my fifth blueberry vodka soda in my hand, I found myself, out of nowhere, beginning to cry.

As it turns out, I wasn’t as prepared as I thought I was to be confronted with the adult life I don’t have and had successfully evaded in my day-to-day life in New York. Sure, I see the Facebook pictures of my sleepaway camp friend’s third baby or of my childhood friend’s son at a school concert, but you don’t run into many daddies — or at least not that kind — at the gay bars in NYC.  It's easy — too easy — for me to forget that there's a suburban world and a family life beyond the Lincoln Tunnel and 59th Street bridge and to avoid admitting how often it calls to me. 

If I had taken a different route — if I were a different person — I’d be doing just as my friend was and our fathers had done so many years ago: I’d be making breakfast for my little boy, telling him to get his books together, picking up his friends for carpool, and telling them to be good in school and learn as I drop them off in front of synagogue. In a moment, I saw in my childhood friend the father I hadn’t become. And now, more than ever before, I find myself noticing young parents and their kids all over NYC, who, up until now, faded into the background. 

When you’re in your 20s, you know people who have kids, but you figure, “I still have time.” When in your 30s, it feels like every straight friend you’ve ever known is having babies. When you reach 40, their kids are at ages you can distinctly remember being yourself.  For me, when I think back, I remember clearly that, even as a child myself, I just assumed I’d be doing all this with my son one day … like fatherhood would simply happen to me somehow. But the hard reality is that it never happened — not yet. I don’t have a little boy who counts on me, waiting with his backpack to go to school, looking to me for comfort and whatever life knowledge I have to impart. And it hurts so much more than I ever thought it would.

“When did everybody pair off,” Lexi loudly and desperately asks the other party guests in that Sex and the City episode. “This used to be the most exciting city in the world … now it’s nothing but smoking near a fucking open window. New York is over. O.V.E.R Over. No one’s fun anymore. What ever happened to fun? God. I’m so bored I could die.” Immediately after uttering those words, she tragically and ironically trips and falls to her demise out of the window of a high-rise NYC apartment. Thankfully, my exit from my friend’s Chicago '80s party was far less dramatic. I collected myself pretty quickly, returned to the party, and closed out a great night (RIP, Lexi).

It’s a blessed life when, even in a moment of personal difficulty, you open the door and literally have a room full of friends waiting for you. My life certainly does not want for good times and people with whom to share them. I have an incredible family and circle of friends. From Fire Island to Mykonos, I travel often and make the most out of each trip. I live like a gay single man in NYC ought to — and fun is not missing in any part of it (sorry, Lexi). I’m lucky in many ways and am fully aware that wanting what you don’t or can’t have is an inextricable part of the human condition.

But still, when I close my eyes, I reach for the quieter life that remains just outside my grasp. I can see myself carrying my son to bed and reading him a story to send him peacefully off to sleep. I’d check in on him periodically to make sure he’s safe and comfortable. And if he were to wake up 30 or so years later — take a look around and see a world different from the one he’d hoped for — I’d still be there.

I’d run my fingers through his hair, place my hand gently on his cheek to catch any tears, and assure him that there are plenty of roads ahead. Always remember that everything can change in an instant — and never stop dreaming about what your life could be. The most important thing in life is to be true to yourself, look out for those you love, be kind and generous to everyone — family, lover, friend, and stranger — and let the chips fall where they may. If you do that, my son, I’ll always be proud of you, and you should be too.   

I’d like to think that those words would comfort him as they (somewhat) did me that night as I tried (unsuccessfully) to fall asleep in my hotel room. The next morning, my friend dropped his son off at Hebrew School while I packed my suitcase. We met for brunch and then I left for the airport. On a crowded flight to JFK, I found myself still thinking about where I had been and where I was headed. I closed my eyes to catch a much-needed nap before I got back to New York, anxious and excited to return to the many wonderful gifts that awaited me there and still dreaming of all that has yet to happen.

Alabama legislators have approved a bill that would protect the state licenses of adoption agencies that follow faith-based policies, such as refusing to place children with same-sex couples.

House Bill 24, which now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey for her signature, would not protect the licenses of agencies that receive state or federal funds, but opponents say it is still state-sanctioned discrimination, reports AL.com, a website for several Alabama newspapers.

“This bill obviously came about because same-sex marriage was approved,” said Rep. Patricia Todd, a Birmingham Democrat who is the only openly gay member of the legislature, the site reports. “It’s based in a stereotype. And it’s wrong. And we shouldn’t discriminate and I will always fight that. When a faith-based organization decides to step into either adoption or child care, they should have to follow the same rules and regulations as every other agency.”

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Rich Wingo, countered that the measure is necessary to prevent discrimination against faith-based agencies. Around the nation, some “have been forced to close their doors because they refuse to place children in homes that go against their faith,” he said. That has usually happened, however, with agencies that receive state funding.

The state House of Representatives gave final approval to HB 24 Tuesday, concurring with an amendment the Senate added last week. South Dakota, Michigan, North Dakota, and Virginia have similar laws, according to the Associated Press.

Equality Alabama denounced the legislation. “The Alabama House of Representatives proved today that they don’t have the best interest of the nearly 5,000 children in Alabama’s child placing systems in mind,” board chair Alex Smith said in a Tuesday press release. “This bill robs these children of a loving home and gives the state’s seal of approval to unnecessary religious exemptions that open the door to discrimination.” Equality Alabama and the national Equality Federation both called on Ivey to veto the bill.

Alabama Wants 'License to Discriminate' in Adoption

A family court judge says he will no longer hear adoption cases involving gay parents, as “a matter of conscience.”

Judge Mitchell Nance issued an order last week recusing himself from such cases because of the possibility of bias, citing his “conscientious objection to the concept of adoption of a child by a practicing homosexual,” reports Kentucky’s Glasgow Daily Times. Nance works in family court in the state’s 43rd Judicial District, encompassing Barren and Metcalfe counties in south-central Kentucky.

“It’s preemptive in nature,” Nance told the paper of the order. “I wanted to preempt there from being any uncertainty if the situation arose.”

Another judge in the district, John T. Alexander, said he would hear any of the cases from which Nance recused himself. He has no objection to hearing cases involving gay parents, “so it should not affect the ability of any same-sex couples to adopt in Barren or Metcalfe counties,” Alexander told the Daily Times.

Nance’s action, which is being compared to Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, received praise from a Kentucky right-wing group, but others said it calls into question his fitness to continue serving as a judge.

“If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and sexuality, then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from such cases,” Kentucky Family Foundation spokesman Martin Cothran said in a press release, according to the Daily Times.

When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest of a child to grow up with both a mother and a father, people can’t expect judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee,” he continued.

Kentucky Fairness Campaign director Chris Hartman told the paper Nance’s move is “pure discrimination,” adding, “If Judge Nance can’t perform the basic functions of his job, which are to deliver impartiality, fairness, and justice to all families in his courtroom, then he shouldn’t be a judge.”

Some lawyers tended to agree with Hartman. “The bottom line is if this judge can’t fulfill his duties because of his personal biases, he should resign,” Dan Canon, a lawyer who represented same-sex couples in marriage equality cases, told The Courier-Journal of Louisville.

Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh told the Louisville paper, “He has taken an oath to uphold the law, which by virtue of the equal protection clause does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. If he is unable to set his personal views aside and uphold the law — not just in an isolated case, but with respect to an entire class of litigant because he finds them odious — it leads me to wonder whether he is able to honor his oath.”

And University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson told The New York Times,“What we have is a judge who has made a record of his inability to be a fair and impartial judge for a whole class of citizens who are entitled to have a fair and impartial judge. It raises serious problems about his fitness for office going forward.”

Nance told the Daily Times at least two cases involving gay parents had come to him during his career. There was one several years ago from which he recused himself, then one a few months ago in which he actually ruled in favor of gay parents seeking to adopt. The latter case made him decide he should opt out of any further cases.

“It made the matter come to my awareness more directly, I would say,” he told the Glasgow paper. “I felt it would be more prudent to go ahead and address it.”

In Davis’s case, she shut down all marriage license operations in Rowan County shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling. After four couples sued, she went to jail rather than obey a federal judge’s order to issue licenses without discrimination. She was released after her deputies agreed to handle same-sex marriages, and now Kentucky has removed clerks’ names from licenses, a move that accommodates Davis’s religious objections.

Two Southern governors, Bill Haslam of Tennessee and Kay Ivey of Alabama, signed anti-LGBT bills into law Thursday.

Haslam signed House Bill 1111, which requires that “undefined words” in Tennessee law “be given their natural and ordinary meaning, without forced or subtle construction that would limit or extend the meaning of the language, except when a contrary intention is clearly manifest,” as the bill text reads.

LGBT activists say — and its backers admit — that the bill is aimed at defining terms regarding marriage and gender in a way that excludes LGBT people.

“The reason we [approved the bill] was simple," Haslam told the Knoxville News Sentinel."The natural and ordinary definition that is part of that legislation is really what the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court has used those terms for years, actually, for centuries.” Haslam had said he would base his decision on whether to sign or veto the bill on the will of legislators, and both the state House and Senate passed it by large margins.

Zeke Stokes, vice President of programs for GLAAD, issued a statement condemning the measure: “By the stroke of a pen, Governor Haslam has now placed the future of the state’s economy and the well-being of the LGBTQ community in jeopardy. HB 1111 has the potential to undermine marriages between LGBTQ couples, nullify a transgender person’s true identity under law, and put LGBTQ families at risk. This sets a dangerous precedent for how the LGBTQ community is treated in Tennessee moving forward."

Tennessee Equality Project executive director Chris Sanders told the News Sentinel the word “natural” was troublesome. “We know the way ‘natural’ is typically used in respect to our relationships,” he said. “Our families aren’t natural. So that is a concern, and with 95 counties and elected judges serving all of them, there’s just huge potential for LGBT folks to get a bad ruling somewhere along the way. So we’re very concerned about that.”

State Attorney General Herbert Slatery, though, had issued an opinion saying judges would likely continue to side with the more inclusive definitions in current case law, such as the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court marriage equality decision, the News Sentinel reports.

In Alabama, Ivey signed a measure that would prevent the state from withholding or pulling licenses from religiously affiliated adoption agencies that follow the tenets of their faith in placing children, even if that means refusing to place adoptees with same-sex couples or LGBT individuals. The legislation, House Bill 24, applies “only to private agencies that don’t accept state or federal funds,” the Associated Press reports.

“This bill is not about discrimination, but instead protects the ability of religious agencies to place vulnerable children in a permanent home,” Ivey said in a statement, according to the AP.

But opponents said the law is clearly aimed at allowing discrimination. “We are deeply disappointed that the legislature and the governor took on this unnecessary, discriminatory bill instead of focusing on how to improve the lives of all Alabamians, no matter who they are or whom they love,” said Eva Kendrick, state director of the Human Rights Campaign Alabama. The bill also means these agencies can discriminate against interfaith couples, single parents, and others who pose a conflict with their faith, in addition to LGBT people.

Texas lawmakers this week advanced two pieces of anti-LGBT legislation, one allowing discrimination by adoption agencies, another aimed at preventing transgender students from participating in high school sports.

The Texas House of Representatives approved a bill that would allow faith-based adoption agencies, including those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with an agency’s religious dogma.

This would mean state-funded discrimination against a host of groups, including LGBT people, single people, interfaith couples, and members of minority faiths, opponents of the bill say. The House passed the measure, House Bill 3859, Tuesday by a vote of 94-51, and the state Senate is considering similar legislation, the Houston Chronicle reports.

“HB 3859 is yet another example of Texas legislators’ coordinated efforts to pursue discrimination against LGBTQ people instead of focusing on the best interest of all Texans,” said Marty Rouse, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, and an adoptive and foster parent, in a press release.“If signed into law, this bill would most harm the children in Texas’ child welfare system — kids who need a loving, stable home. Discrimination under law is unacceptable. The Senate must recognize this bill for what it is: an attempt to discriminate against LGBTQ Texans, this time targeting some of Texas’ most vulnerable residents: children in the child welfare system.”

“It’s horrific that the Texas House would allow state-funded or private adoption agencies to use religious exemptions as a weapon to ban qualified LGBTQ families from adopting a child,” added GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “As a mother, it’s infuriating to see anti-LGBTQ politicians do literally anything, including harming a child’s future, to drive their discriminatory anti-LGBTQ political agendas forward.”

The bill’s author, Republican Rep. James Frank, said it is simply about “reasonable accommodations,” according to the Chronicle. Frank, an adoptive parent, said he and his wife told an agency they wanted a boy who was older than 8, and an agency was willing to fulfill their request. “The fact that we make reasonable accommodations allowed me to participate, and I think that's the same case,” he said. "As long as we are not asking people to do unreasonable things, then we simply add to our capacity with people from all walks of life.”

About 25 percent of the state’s adoption providers are faith-based. Supporters of the bill noted that in some states, faith-based providers, such as Catholic Charities, have ceased handling adoption services rather than comply with antidiscrimination laws.

Texas has a serious backlog of children waiting to be adopted, the Chronicle reports. About 3,800 children in state care are eligible for adoption, and the state is housing some in government buildings because there is a shortage of foster homes. “Advocates say the growing backlog has endangered Texas's most vulnerable children, such as the Houston teen in foster care who was killed last month in a collision with a van after she left a state office where she had slept,” the paper reports.

HB 3859 will only make the situation worse, opponents said. “We’re now taking the consideration of the providers over the best interests of the child,” Democratic Rep. Jennifer Farrar said, according to the Chronicle.

Alabama recently passed a law protecting the licensure of adoption agencies that have religious objections to placing children with certain parents, but it does not apply to agencies receiving state or federal funds.

The other measure, Senate Bill 2095, received final approval in that chamber Wednesday and now goes to the House. It would allow the state's governing body for high school sports, the University Interscholastic League, to bar students taking doctor-prescribed hormone therapy from participating in interscholastic sports, effectively preventing transgender students from competing, The Texas Tribune reports.

The bill came after a 17-year-old transgender boy, Mack Beggs, won a state girls’ wrestling championship while taking testosterone. Because he is still listed as female on his birth certificate, he cannot participate in boys’ sports. 

“This bill would permit the UIL [to bar] athletes like Mack because of the argument that their health-based treatment would create an unfair advantage and therefore discriminate against trans athletes considering most trans athletes don’t have immediate access to have their birth certificates changes appropriately,” said Democratic Sen. Sylvia Garcia, who proposed an amendment requiring the league to adopt trans-inclusive policies similar to the National Collegiat Athletic Association’s, the Tribune reports. The amendment did not pass, and the bill now goes to the House.

“It’s discouraging that Texas lawmakers appear so fixated on singling out LGBT people — particularly transgender youth — for discrimination,” said Kasey Suffredini, Freedom for All Americans’ acting CEO and president of strategy, in a press release.

There are several other anti-LGBT bills pending in the legislature, including several “license to discriminate” measures, which would allow businesses and people in various occupations, such as mental health, child welfare, and govenment service, to turn away LGBT people. 

The Fourth Annual AMPA National Gala — the nation’s largest LGBT military event of the year — is a night of celebration and heartfelt emotion.

The Fourth Annual AMPA National Gala — the nation’s largest LGBT military event of the year — is a night of celebration and heartfelt emotion.

Sergeant Major Christal Rheams of the U.S. Army Band opens the evening with the national anthem.

AMPA Gala cochairs Nick Stone and Adrianna Domingos-Lupher

03 Tmd 4130

AMPA President Ashley Broadway-Mack, who was introduced by former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs Rosemary Williams.

AMPA President Ashley Broadway-Mack

06 Tmd 4149

07 Tmd 4122

Far left: former Navy Seal Kristin Beck

Senior Vice President for Military and Veteran Affairs at Comcast NBC Universal, retired United States Army Brigadier General Carol Eggert

09 Tmd 4107

Eric Fanning, the first openly gay Army Secretary, confirmed by U.S. Senate

AMPA board member Jim Cassidy

12 Tmd 4353

13 Tmd 4093

14 Tmd 4094

15 Tmd 4098

16 Tmd 4344

AMPA board member Jim Cassidy congratulates Brian Moreno, the winner of the 2017 Donna Johnson Equality and Valor Award; in background (left) is Donna Johnson's war widow, Tracy Johnson

18 Tmd 4361

19 Tmd 4363

20 Tmd 4367

Staff Sergeant Logan Ireland, who introduced Dr. Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center

22 Tmd 4100

23 Tmd 4103

24 Tmd 4106

At right: Brian Moreno, recipient of the 2017 Donna Johnson Equality and Valor Award

26 Tmd 4410

Dr. Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center

28 Tmd 4355

29 Tmd 4112

30 Tmd 4358

31 Tmd 4115

32 Tmd 4129

33 Tmd 4414

34 Tmd 4143

36 Tmd 4226

37 Tmd 4232

38 Tmd 4246

40 Tmd 4134

41 Tmd 4378

42 Tmd 4381

43 Tmd 4501

44 Tmd 4387

45 Tmd 4391

46 Tmd 4402

47 Tmd 4395

48 Tmd 4397

49 Tmd 4419

50 Tmd 4422

51 Tmd 4478

52 Tmd 4423

53 Tmd 4451

54 Tmd 4436

55 Tmd 4440

56 Tmd 4462

57 Tmd 4475

58 Tmd 4487

59 Tmd 4442

60 Tmd 4495

61 Tmd 4499

62 Tmd 4490

63 Tmd 4505 2

64 Tmd 4510 2

LGBT Stars and Stripes Come Out for Military Gala

The 4th Annual AMPA National Gala — the nation’s largest LGBT military event of the year — is a night of celebration and heartfelt emotion.

A gay couple say they and their children were denied family boarding privileges on a Southwest Airlines flight from Buffalo, N.Y., to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The incident, which took place Saturday, was an act of discrimination, one member of the couple, Grant Morse, told HuffPost. He and his husband were traveling with their three children and his husband’s mother.

“We approached the ... ‘family boarding area’ as we have done many times,” Morse told HuffPost.“The boarding agent assertively approached and said, ‘This is family boarding.’ My husband responded, ‘We know, we are a family.’ She said, ‘Not all can go. This is family boarding.’”

Morse said he and the family have used family boarding many times with no problem, and that an opposite-sex couple and their toddler boarded together after Morse’s family was denied.

A Southwest spokesperson said the family boarding rule allows one parent to board with children, but members of the flight crew usually go ahead and let both parents board. The spokesperson said the problem with Morse’s group was that his mother-in-law, who is 83, needs extra help and was therefore not eligible for family boarding.

“Our Operations Agent informed two parents that another member of their group was ineligible to board under Family Boarding and asked that she board in her assigned boarding group,” said a statement released by Southwest. “This conversation in the boarding area had nothing to do with discrimination, we welcomed both parents to board the aircraft with their children. The parents expressed disappointment that the Family Boarding policy was not applicable to another member of their group. The two parents did not agree with our policy, and our Flight Crew worked to save seats together on the aircraft for the family as the conversation continued in the gate area.”

But Morse said that only one of the men was allowed to board with the children, and he and his husband ended up sitting separately — one of them sat with two of the children and the other with one child. And his mother-in-law sat by herself.

“Never once did they say, ‘You two fathers and you three kids can board, and grandma has to wait over there,’” Morse told HuffPost.“I feel all they’re doing is trying to cover up discrimination right now.” He is considering a lawsuit, and if he wins any damages, he will donate them to a charity that fights discrimination, he said.