Five ways people of faith have led LGBTQ advocacy efforts since the 1969 Stonewall riots

  June 28 marked the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, often deemed as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement. On June 28, 1969, police raided New York City’s Stonewall Inn, a bar and gathering space for members of the LGBTQ community. Riots ensued between the police and LGBTQ patrons and passersby, led by transgender women of color including Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. Despite high-profile examples of faith-based opposition to LGBTQ rights since the riots, these anti-equality viewpoints do not reflect the attitudes of all faith communities. Faith leaders and religious communities have also played a key role in the LGBTQ rights movement.

Sally Steenland: Repairing Christianity’s damaged brand

  One of the saddest and most damaging consequences of the Religious Right’s grip on partisan power over the past three decades has been the tarnishing of Christianity.

  Since the 1980s, the Religious Right—an organized political force consisting of extremely conservative Christians—has inserted its theological views into federal and state laws and attempted to impose its doctrines on a diverse, pluralistic nation. Leaders in the Religious Right have partnered with conservatives in the Republican Party to oppose LGBT equality, women’s reproductive health and rights, the teaching of evolution in schools, government safety net programs for the poor, and more.

Sally Steenland: There’s more than one way to start a revolution

  At a time when religion is a damaged brand to many people—especially the young—and when it seems synonymous with intolerance and bigotry rather than justice and mercy, the recent words of Pope Francis are occasion for joy. Or as Equally Blessed, a Catholic support group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people put it, his words are "rain on a parched land."

Charles C. Haynes: For most Americans, gay equality trumps religious objections

  In the wake of two favorable Supreme Court decisions, gay-rights proponents got another boost this month with the release of State of the First Amendment: 2013, a public-opinion survey supported by the First Amendment Center.

  According to the new poll, a majority of Americans (62%) now agrees that religiously affiliated groups receiving government funds can be required to provide health benefits to same-sex couples, even if the group has religious objections to same-sex marriage or partnerships.

Joseph O. Patton: The Great Pretenders

  Every self-described progressive or person of conscience is quick to tell you how they support social justice and equality. I sure as hell do… and I’m not shy when it comes to expressing it. But what does it say about someone who only brandishes some type of righteous anger when a victim of discrimination or racial profiling looks like them or shares their sexuality, religious preference, gender or some other key characteristic?

Joseph O. Patton: No merit badge for bigotry

  I could spin all sorts of cheerleader-esque rhetoric in response to yesterday’s monumental decision by the Boy Scouts of America. After months of controversy, infighting and ample wallowing in prejudiced mud, the organization opted to lift its ban on “openly gay” Scouts. One side calls the decision a victory for equal rights and the other is upset that they can no longer practice unapologetic discrimination.

  But what struck me with the most force in this squabble has been the incessant referencing of “morality.” Countless individuals waving the banner for bigotry have taken to social media and shouting at their friends to exclaim that they cannot support lifting the ban because it’s at odds with their “morality.” Many are even threatening to sever ties with the organization and snatch their boys out of its ranks. Good riddance?

Gary Palmer: What is the end-game for support of same-sex marriage?

  When announcing his support for same-sex marriage, President Obama defended his position by saying that his thinking has evolved on the issue. Given that there is little chance that Congress will approve same-sex marriage in the immediate future, the question that should be raised is, what is the real end-game for Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage?

  Perhaps Obama and the Democrat Party think his endorsement is a winning issue for Democrats. Many liberals believe that national approval of same-sex marriage is inevitable. And, a number of polls do show growing support for same-sex marriage, especially among people under age 30. But if they believe the polls suggesting that same-sex marriage is on the verge of nationwide acceptance, how do they explain the fact that 29 states, including California, have passed referendums declaring that marriage is only between one man and one woman? In addition, nine more states have passed statutes.

Larry M. Elkin: Evolving under pressure, Obama endorses gay marriage

  There are two ways, sharply contrasting yet not mutually exclusive, that we can look at President Obama's declaration that he now supports marriage rights for same-sex couples.

  The cynical view is that, when left with no alternative, even the most self-interested politician will do the right thing.

  The idealistic view is that democracy really does work, that the American people have a deep though imperfect respect for civil liberties, and that ultimately our politicians must at least try to be as good as we want our country to be, even when doing so is politically inconvenient.