Email:

“Together, Forever:” World Premiere
at Sundance 2026 on January 24, 2026.(Photo Courtesy of Sundance Film Institute).

“Together Forever” is a 14-minute film that deals with a young Mormon couple on their wedding night. It focuses on all of the awkward “first time” sexual shenanigans. It would have helped me to have been raised Mormon, as the very concept of “roping” was foreign to me. To be brutally honest, it is still fairly  incomprehensible to me, but I was raised Roman Catholic.

Writer/Director Gregory Barnes characterizes it as a “Mormon loophole” for having sex without benefit of marriage and—without the requisite Mormon upbringing and background—I’m taking his word for it. Director Barnes described the film as having been worked on by a crew that was largely ex-Mormon.   I wondered if the crew gave the audience too much credit for being savvy as to what “roping” meant and aware of this “Mormon loophole”? I was also not surprised that most of those responsible for this Neon project are now EX-Mormons.

WRITER/DIRECTOR

Writer/Director Gregory Barnes of “Together, Forever” at Sundance on Saturday, January 24, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Sundance Film Institute).

Written and directed by Gregory Barnes (who grew up a devout Mormon in Oak Park, Illinois), this is a film from a queer director dealing with what seems like an anachronism in the highly sexualized world of 2026. I’m not Mormon (neither is Barnes any more) but I was raised with good old Catholic guilt  regarding premarital sex in the dim dark pre-pill days.

I came of age in the sixties and fought hard for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to give birth, via access to the birth control pill—a modern miracle new on the scene when I came of age.  I fought hard for abortion rights and reproductive rights for women all through the seventies. Look how well that is going for young women today (she said sarcastically.)

I come to the topic of marriage as an institution with 6 decades of marital bliss under my belt ( yes, I did use that phrase on purpose) and a daughter in her thirties who got engaged January 15^th.

Therefore,  I thoroughly enjoyed and related to this well-done short.

A few observations about the topic, in general. This should not be construed as criticism of the writing, directing, acting, cinematography (Fidel Ruiz-Healy), music (Jack Sobo) or editing (Jordan Michael Blake), all of which are good. The topic is well-executed  and demonstrates why Writer/Director Gregory Barnes won the Jury Prize for U.S. Fiction Short at the 2021 Sundance Film Festival for “The Touch of the Master’s Hand,”  Samuel Sylvester’s debut acting performance.

THE CAST

Lindsey Normington (“Anora) as Sydney in “Together, Forever” at Sundance, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Sundance Film Institute).

The two principal actors did a fine job. The enthusiastic Mormon bride, Sydney, is played by Lindsey Normington, who portrayed Diamond in 2024’s “Anora.” She also organized the first unionized strip club in Los Angeles. Bravo, Lindsey! You will continue to sparkle, (whether your character name is ever Diamond again or not.) You were great!

Likewise, Samuel Sylvester, who plays the possibly gay groom Caleb, is good in his part. This was his second acting role. He is currently pursuing his PhD at the University of Texas in Austin. [Did you know that, according to the Austin American-Statesman, the UT powers-that-be just made a philosophy instructor at UT who taught Plato remove some of Plato’s thoughts on sexuality?]

MORMON PRESIDENT’S WORDS ON MARRIAGE (c. 2004)

The short opens with the words of Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley  (2004)  entitled “The Women in our Lives.” The setting is the Mormon wedding of Caleb and Sydney. The speech goes like this:  “In the grand design, when God first created man, He created a duality of the sexes.  The ennobling expression of that duality is found in marriage.”

Objection! Generations of closeted gay men and lesbian women date all the way back to Greek days.  Ron Reagan, Jr.—the world’s most famous atheist—would disagree with the rest of the paragraph, but let’s move on to hear Mormon President Gordon Hinckley out: “For when all is said and done, there is no association richer than the companionship of husband and wife in the sacred name of Jesus Christ. Amen.”

Any person of a faith other than Christianity may want to debate Mr. Hinckley. From the vantage point of 58 years of marriage, with a son who celebrates 25 years of wedded bliss in November and a daughter about to embark on her own marital journey,  it does not seem sporting to marry someone without fully disclosing the possible homosexual tendencies that Caleb seems to have.

Even the World’s Best Athlete of the time (Bruce Jenner) leveled with his then-wife about some of his desires (and you all know what happened next.) Sometimes,  realizations about gender issues  come after the knot is tied. That did not seem to be the case in “Together Forever.” [Shame on you, Caleb, for not being honest about your sexuality before marrying Sydney!]

And good luck with your sexual frustration, Sydney! The line, “I just thought our first time would be in garments” made me initially wonder what Sydney was talking about. I thought perhaps I had missed an important alternative definition  or misheard her. Again, not a Mormon and not “up” on roping. [From Iowa, Illinois and Texas: only familiar with “roping” in the context of animal husbandry.]

Samuel Sylvester as Caleb in Writer/Director Gregory Barnes’ short “Together, Forever” at Sundance on Saturday, January 24, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Sundance Film Institute).

Returning to Gordon Hinckley’s thoughts on marriage:  Although it is true that in the last five decades, two-thirds of all women were married or in a union, marriage is far from what it once was.  Of women born in 1940, more than 90% married by the age of 30 (and 83% of men) but, in 1990, only 29% of women were married by the age of 30 and only 20% of men. It was the norm to “look for a husband” when you set off for college in the sixties, but that is no longer the overriding purpose of sending your single daughter off to college.

Nowadays, that daughter is a working woman and she isn’t getting married until her late twenties or thirties, whereas she married in her early or mid  twenties in my day (married at 22; a mother at 23). My mother (born in 1907) was a very notable exception to this pattern, working and supporting herself as a teacher until her marriage at age 30 in 1927. (You go, Mom!)

Here’s another interesting talking point to think about in relation to “Together Forever.” In England and Wales, around 90% of those married in 2022 cohabited first. Those kinds of real-life statistics make the focal point of this film seem quaint or anachronistic. Since the middle of the twentieth century, marriage has become less common, couples are marrying later, more couples live together first

Lindsey Normington as Sydney in “Together, Forever” at Sundance, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Sundance Film Institute).

and there is a decoupling of marriage and parenthood.

All of the facts above are courtesy of “Our World Data” (Bastian Herre, Veronika Sambaska, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, Max Baker), revised in February of 2025.

For me, the idea of this focus on sexuality not being permissible until after marriage seemed quaint. Since couples are living together more frequently (and without benefit of marriage) and participation in most religions in the civilized world has declined, is this aspect of the Mormon faith really a Hot Topic in 2026—even in Mormon circles? I’m not disputing it; I’m just asking.

CONCLUSION:

“Together Forever” had its World Premiere at Sundance’s Yarrow Theatre on Saturday, January 24^th. It will screen again at Sundance on Wednesday, January 28, 3:00 PM, Public Screening 2 (Broadway Centre Cinemas 3) Thursday, January 29, 10:20 AM, Public Screening 3 (Redstone 3) Friday, January 30, 10:00 AM, Public Screening 4 (Holiday Village Cinema 2).

If you’re reading this while at Sundance, I enjoyed “Together, Forever.” I think you would, too

Healthcare in the United States has always been a complex web of policy, profit, and patient needs. While the system is designed to heal and protect lives, corporate lobbying has quietly tilted the scales in favor of powerful interests. Instead of focusing on affordable care and patient safety, healthcare lobbying often centers around profit margins, market dominance, and favorable legislation.

The US, in 2023, spent over $4,866 billion on healthcare, an amount significantly higher than the year before. Right now, the influence of money in healthcare policymaking has become so pervasive that it risks undermining public trust. At the same time, it is also

risking the integrity of medical care itself.

Of course, lobbying is not inherently illegal or immoral. In fact, it can serve a useful purpose when advocacy groups push for better access to medicines or stronger patient protections.

The real problem arises when major pharmaceutical corporations, insurance companies, and medical device manufacturers use lobbying to influence regulations. This, in turn, benefits their bottom line at the expense of patient well-being.

This imbalance can lead to serious consequences for healthcare costs, medical innovation, and patient safety, as you shall see upon reading further.

https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1635840420670-5470266ffa39?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxwaG90by1wYWdlfHx8fGVufDB8fHx8fA%3D%3D&auto=format&fit=crop&q=80&w=1169

The Unhealthy Grip of Money on Policy

Pharmaceutical companies have significantly increased their lobbying efforts. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent a record $7.58 million on lobbying efforts. Major drugmakers are also logging some of their largest quarterly lobbying expenditures.

When billions of dollars circulate through Washington each year, lobbying can shape everything from drug pricing laws to hospital reimbursement rates. Big pharmaceutical companies often hire lobbyists to soften regulations or delay generic drug approvals.

This prevents cheaper alternatives from reaching patients who desperately need them. Similarly, health insurance giants lobby to limit coverage obligations, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher costs.

Patients are the ultimate losers in this game. They face inflated prices, limited treatment access, and, in many cases, unsafe products that should have been more strictly regulated. The steady stream of money from corporate lobbyists has made it difficult for independent lawmakers to act solely in the interest of public health.

Does Lobbying Affect Legal Battles?

When powerful corporations are accused of wrongdoing, their lobbying connections can subtly shape outcomes. Companies with extensive lobbying networks often push for favorable legislation or settlements that minimize their accountability. They can also sway regulatory agencies that oversee medical devices and drug safety, making it harder for victims to seek justice.

Take the Bard PowerPort lawsuit as an example. According to TorHoerman Law, the Bard PowerPort device is an implantable medical device designed for easy access to a patient’s bloodstream. It has been reported that the device can cause blood clots and other serious health risks among users.

Thousands of patients have claimed injuries caused by the device’s defects, leading to the Bard PowerPort lawsuit. Victims argue that the device fractured or migrated within their bodies, causing internal damage and severe complications.

Corporate lobbying could influence how these lawsuits progress, potentially shielding manufacturers from the full extent of their liability. If lobbying succeeds in shaping regulatory interpretations or settlement rules, many victims might never receive the compensation they deserve.

This creates an uneven playing field where corporations can leverage their wealth and connections to escape accountability, while ordinary Americans continue to suffer.

https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1532938911079-1b06ac7ceec7?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxwaG90by1wYWdlfHx8fGVufDB8fHx8fA%3D%3D&auto=format&fit=crop&q=80&w=1332

Shouldn’t Patient Safety Come First?

At the heart of the healthcare system should be patient safety. Every hospital, manufacturer, and policymaker should treat this as sacred. But when lobbying becomes a driving force, safety standards can be weakened or delayed.

Lobbyists often work to resist stricter testing or post-market surveillance rules for new medical products, arguing that they increase costs and slow innovation.

Having spent over $6.36 billion on lobbying from 1998 to mid-2025, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has outspent every other sector. In 2024 alone, it reached a record-high lobbying expenditure of $387.47 million. What such lobbying does is place patients in harm’s way, as unsafe products enter the market with limited oversight.

The Role of Lawmakers in Resisting Lobbying Pressure

Lawmakers have an ethical responsibility to ensure that healthcare decisions are based on science and compassion, not money. They must resist the pressure of lobbyists and prioritize patient welfare.

Campaign donations and corporate influence can distort even the most well-intentioned policies. The only way to restore trust in the healthcare system is through stronger transparency rules and clear separation between industry and regulation.

Public officials should demand disclosure of all lobbying activities related to healthcare and impose stricter conflict-of-interest policies for policymakers. These steps would not eliminate lobbying entirely, but could prevent it from undermining justice and public health.

In What Ways Can Inaction Cost the Nation?

If lobbying continues unchecked, the American healthcare system will drift further from its purpose. As the American Journal of Medicine notes, unchecked lobbying in health policy decisions will affect almost all aspects of healthcare. Prices will remain high, product safety will continue to suffer, and public confidence will keep declining.

The human cost of inaction is far greater than any short-term economic gain for corporations. Patients will continue to be treated as profit sources rather than human beings deserving care and respect.

The healthcare industry needs reform that places patients first and corporations second. The only way to achieve this is by drawing a clear line between legitimate advocacy and undue influence. Every dollar spent on lobbying to block reform is a dollar taken away from research, patient education, or affordable treatment.

Keeping lobbying out of American healthcare is not an idealistic goal; it is a necessary one. A system that prioritizes wealth over wellness cannot truly call itself humane.

The growing influence of lobbying has already caused harm by shaping policies that benefit the powerful while leaving patients behind. If America wants to rebuild faith in its healthcare system, it must start by cutting off the unhealthy relationship between politics and profit.