Good for her.

One thing I found interesting in the article:

Last year, addressing a groom whose gay brother refused to serve as best man or even attend the wedding because he did not have the right to marry, she made it clear her sympathies lay with the boycotting brother.

It says she "her sympathies lay with the boycotting brother", which doesn't fully explain to me whether or not she supports the brother's decision.

I sympathize with the brother, but at the same time it's not his day. The fact that he can't marry doesn't mean squat as to justifying his decision not go take part in his brother's wedding.
He should celebrate his brother's "big day" and take part in the ceremony, and not let his complaints about his own discrimination get in the way of supporting his brother.

On the flip side, using similar logic, I think if the gay brother ever had a "committment ceremony", the straight brother should boycott because the gay brother cannot get married.
Makes as much sense IMO...