Granderson: Will the pendulum on queer rights swing toward sense or nonsense?
Retired NBA center Jason Collins, the first out gay man to play in one of the four major North American leagues, is finally married. His ceremony was in late May, a few yards away from the Lake Austin shore in Texas. He and film producer Brunson Green have basically been together since Collins made history back in 2014. However, now that the two of them are legal, married folks like me will finally stop asking them 'Why aren't you married?'
'You know, we're getting older,' the 46-year-old Collins told me after the wedding, 'and there are advantages. When you're a married couple — especially in the case, God forbid, something happens in a medical emergency or when we're traveling — there are just all of these protections of being married. And if there's a Supreme Court decision that reverses gay marriage and it's up to the states … we wanted to be able get married where we live first. There are a lot of factors that went into it but simply … we chose to get married on our terms.'
It's been nearly a decade — June 26, 2015 — since the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage across the land. If that feels like bedrock, it shouldn't. Remember, that was way back when a 50-year-old Supreme Court ruling guaranteed the right to an abortion across the land. That was back when Elon Musk — with an estimated net worth of $13.2 billion — was barely among the top 100 richest people in the world. That was back when few inside the Washington Beltway took the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency seriously.
Now we have members of Congress comparing him to Jesus.
Needless to say, a lot can change over a decade.
However, what has not changed is Collins' unique place in NBA history. The former All-American from Stanford, who went on to be the starting center in the NBA Finals twice, remains the only person to have been an active player while out.
'There are other NBA players who I am aware of that are members of the LGBTQ+ community but don't identify fully,' Collins told me. 'There are those that l've had conversations with, but they are not ready to step forward for whatever reason in 2025. Is there something keeping them from coming out? You know everyone's on their own schedule. … I don't have a simple answer there, but I definitely know that l'm not the only one.'
The fact that we still have closeted professional athletes should come as no surprise given the political and cultural touchstones that sexual orientation and gender identity remain in our society. As much as we want to rush to a 'who cares' response when a person of note comes out of the closet, the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ bills today and in recent years across this country tells you that a lot of people care.
That's why we all — like Collins and his husband — should remember that marriage is a fragile and hard-won right. The justices' ruling in June 2015 did not end prejudice against same-sex couples any more than Loving vs. Virginia made interracial relationships a moot point in June 1967.
As Carl Jung famously said, 'The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.'
Lawmakers in at least nine states have recently introduced measures to undermine same-sex marriage. That would include my home state of Michigan, where my husband and I were married. In fact, we celebrated our ninth wedding anniversary the same week as Collins' wedding. Whether our legal marriage makes it a decade has nothing to do with the love we have for each other.
That's the tragic reality of having your humanity used for political theater and your rights up for grabs each election cycle. When Collins entered the NBA in 2001, nearly 60% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, according to Pew Research. Today, more than 60% support it — including 44% of Republicans.
Even though marriage equality has been the law of the land for nearly a decade, it has constantly been under assault because it's red meat on the campaign trail.
This conversation isn't about right or wrong. As Jung said, this is between sense and nonsense. Marrying your longtime love, as Collins did, makes all the sense in the world. Marrying out of fear of losing that right — in America in 2025 — is understandable … and yet makes no sense at all.
@LZGranderson
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.
