OK...I'm officially blue in the face, but I'll take another stab at addressing this issue.

Categorizing our citizenship - our constitutional rights that ought be applicable to all Americans - in terms of having the ability to marry is deceptive and counter productive.

I am extremely frustrated by the common acceptance by LGBTs and our allies (see the recent Keith Olbermann special comment) that Prop 8 and all the amendments that accompany and precede it are merely gestures intended to deny us a seat at the head table in an elaborate hetero wedding.

You have serious reservations about the institution of marriage? Fine! Good! Who doesn't? Cynicism in this day and age is healthy and important.

Why then do you have difficulty considering this struggle - the battle for our rights and our claim for full citizenship - in terms of preserving our constitutional integrity instead of always repeating ideological mantras about the evils of matrimony?

Repetition of the traditional marriage crap only serves to advance the argument that LGBTs must be marginalized. Even if you aren't supporting marginalization you keep the dialog on the topic of matrimony and not where it belongs.

Until this "us" you refer to stops allowing the conversation to be about marriage and instead draws attention to the real matter - the shredding of the constitution in order to legitimize the marginalization of all LGBTs - we will never have any grounds to demand a real ENDA.

How can we say that we are wiling to compromise our constitutional citizenship if "they" extend us workplace non-discrimination protections? This isn't a bargain. It is nonsense.

As we are redacted out of constitutions year after year - not because we ask for it, lets not blame the victim - we lose our position to demand more.

You may have a distaste for marriage, but whether you like it or not (and whether the day comes that you need it or not) this is what is on our plate right now, and it has been on the menu for nearly 20 years (in this recent round anyway).

Every victory on their part matched by complicit silence on ours furthers their agenda and keeps us from achieving what is rightly ours - our full and unadulterated citizenship.

Ha, the Point Foundation must be shining with pride with what they've produced in you.

Really, a self-absorbed queer accusing others of being short-sighted; that's new!

I really look forward to the day where you decide to have a family (my condolences to them), and these words come back to haunt you.

Do you REALLY think our government will give a flying F*** about a-n-y rights we may need OUTSIDE of the home when they do not respect the INSIDE of our homes? Our FAMILY?

And many younger gays are totally oblivious - they can barely see beyond the age of 30 to have a clue about estate-planning, a need for divorce after 20 years, or being widowed and then denied a partner's pension after 30 years. And they are CLUELESS to the variety of HORROR STORIES that happen every minute when one or more of those 1,138 rights are not in place, like homelessness, mental illness and PTSD, suicide, welfare, loss of property, loss of jobs, loss of hope.

Honestly? F*** everyone at this point. I do not owe YOU or your "government" or the IRS a penny until equal. Go ahead and pay taxes for SUB-citizenship; SUB-American. I've had it, and my words and tax dollars are th eonlt things I can control. THEY ARE ALL I HAVE LEFT.

This will probably be my last post at Bilerico for a while. I am no longer going to be tolerant of being treated as less, and I cannot yet move beyond the bringing of my enemy here to post something that from anyone else would have been uplifting.

For longer than a year, but *especially the last year, the Transfolk have said time and again that employment protections for us are *more important* than marriage.

I just spent four years campaigning on behalf of Queer kith's right to marriage, an average of 4 hours each day.

I did this, and half way through it, I was run over by a bus.

I got up, and I was already shaken in my willingness to be part of the gay rights movement.

Despite the Empty gestures on the parts of many. I have done as I was asked to do, and I do it very well.

I am limited by what those I educate do with that information, and, for the most part, they seem to do nothing with it.

I am not longer LGBT. I am just Queer. And I set as my priority something other than marriage.

Because without all the rest, marriage has little purpose.

And yet, there are ways I would engage that fight once more.

That will be when I see that initiative to remove the word "marriage" from law.

That will be when there are so many queer people running for office that people talk about it fr months. Not one or two or ten -- hundreds of them. ALl finally willing to get off their ass and do what has to be done if they really want all these things we speak of.

Run for office. Politicians live in a bubble. The only way they will ever have of seeing what we Queer people live through is if we live beside them.

That will be when I see places that call themselves a home of mine apologize for bringing my enemy, despite that enemy stabbing US three times in 15 years.

Any other group and that would *never* be allowed.

That will be when people realize that Queer is what we are, that our old "alliance" of letters is part of what's holding us back, based on the very things they can use to take us apart.

Queer is a word we *took* from them. Just as Gay is a word we took from them. They no longer have that word, and when they holler it at us we can grin and say *yes, we are* and take that power from them.

Queer means to be different. To be odd. To be outside the norm.

Gay means to be happy and content in who and what you are and to express it.

We've forgotten why those words are so important.

I'd rather be odd and different than like them. And if I let being called queer hurt me, then it means that I am *scared* and *shamed* of being different.

That's not Pride. I don't care how painful it was, it is our word now.

And they no longer have it. They can no longer use it to harm us. They no longer have Gay, either. There are no other words in the language like those two.

They are old words, words with great power. And we need to remind them of that.

You cannot separate Queer. There is no alliance in it, and you do not need to be straight or not, cis or not, gay or not, defined or not.

You are Queer. No allies. No motley collections of rejects identified by their very names of "homosexual" and "bisexual" and "transsexual" (and make no mistake, that is why they drive those words time and time again, our enemies are not stupid).

This is a war of Culture, and it doesn't matter if you wanted in it or not. You are.

IN a war of culture, you have to have one.

So, in closing, Mr. Miller, know that while I am most certainly angry, I see much truth to your points.

And I can get married.

*Almost* anywhere. And will, in fact, be doing so.

I could have married anywhere -- not too long ago that was the way it was for me.

I lost that right in some places because of the fight for marriage.

And yet, there I was, doing my best...

Ryan, I agree with much of what you're saying. I'm trans, and single, and not interested in the married lifestyle. And yes, marriage should not confer any special treatment on anyone.

But I see the battle for marriage as a battle for something symbolic of LGBT rights. We all would do well to keep in mind that to our opponents, we're all gay. They make little or no distinction between our various groups and subgroups under the queer umbrella. A win for any one sex or gender non-conforming group is a win for all of us.

Also, since the marriage battle has already been placed on the table, what would happen if we abandoned it? Would we appear to be backing down? Would it embolden our enemies? I hate to sound like an Iraq war apologist, but conceding anything to the religious right could have negative consequences.

The "selfishness" charge that Ryan is receiving is just dumb.

I mean, you're asking him not to organize his politics around his experiences. Fine. People should get out of their bubble and figure out what other people experience.

But saying that anyone who has priorities that are different than yours is selfish doesn't make much sense. Couldn't Ryan just come back and say that you all are selfish for not prioritizing what he thinks is important?

Then, wouldn't the least selfish thing for the LGBT movement to do be organize around something like ending mountain top removal? I mean, then we'd be caring about something that has nothing to do with our collective identity.

It's fascinating (but not surprising) to me that some of my ideas are critiqued not at face value, but on the basis of my (perceived) age, as Chad touched upon. Or they're critiqued at face value, which is fine, and then my age is brought up as a rationale or another piece of evidence. (I say it's not surprising because I face this every day at work and in graduate school, and have in the past as well.)
Young people are subject to a whole host of stereotypes, misinformation and discrimination that often get played out when we make an argument, especially one that is unpopular. While this occurs in the broader context of society, it's especially frustrating and saddening to me that it's reproduced in what is supposed to be my community. We're a marginalized community, and here we go again marginalizing our own.
I struggled with including a photo or the fact that I'm in graduate school for these very reasons - but I shouldn't have to think about whether I can say that or have to hide the pieces of who I am to have a rational discussion. Isn't that something we can all draw on some level of personal experience to relate to?
I made the assertion that marriage has taken quite a bit of "space" psychologically and otherwise in our community. Judging by the reaction here, I probably wouldn't revise that assertion but it's become even more clear to me that this is viewed as correct, obligatory and even so basic to our organizing that suggestions there are other issues may be perceived as a threat.
There are other assumptions that have been projected onto me but I don't want to even address the personal claims made about me (by people I don't even know) because I think it's all a distraction from the issue.
I return to the basic premise that I think we can dream big, and we don't need to limit ourselves - for example, healthcare is obviously a huge issue. If you want your spouse to have your healthcare, I support that - and in fact I think we all deserve it, regardless of whether we have a job or relationship. And that's somehow cast as selfish or too idealistic (even when there's broad-based support for universal healthcare and possibly the political will do it nationwide). I'd love to move to a "both/and" paradigm - but even in advocating for a "both/and" approach, I feel as though it's seen as taking something away, or as becoming "either/or." These conversations are difficult for me because regardless of what I say, the assumptions that I am against couples and their happiness/well-being and the rest immediately cloud everything else. When what I'm trying to get to is, YES, I care about couples, AND there happen to be a lot of other people I care about, too.
At the end of the day I think these amendment are losing propositions, no matter who "wins" - that sometimes it's not about the answer to a question if the question asked in the first place is out of line. And then the issue consumes us - and who falls by the wayside?

Although I was elated for that brief moment on election night when Obama was declared the winner, I was more concerned about the results of Prop 8.

Why? Because even though *I* am not in a long term relationship, and even though *I* do not intend to get married, I am totally against TAKING THE RIGHTS AWAY from those who had it.

Remember, the difference here is that in May 2008, the California State Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 (passed 8 years ago in California) was unconstitutional. Therefore, for 5 glorious months, we gay people in California enjoyed the same right to marry as straight people. In fact, I have gay friends who got married during those 5 months, and now the status of their marriage is hanging in the balance.

Prop 8 was not just a simple vote to ban gay marriage. It was a vote to take rights away that had already been determined to be valid and constitutional. And that's just UNFAIR AND WRONG. This is not just a "big gay issue." It's a civil rights issue.

That's why, when I heard that we were losing the fight in October, for the first time in my life I adopted a political cause - I donated to the No On 8 campaign, volunteered for the phone banks, put yard signs in my yard, and talked to my straight family and coworkers.

And that's why, for the first time in my life, I felt sick to my stomach when the election results came in.

Ryan, perhaps you don't get it because you live in Texas. In California, we're used to more tolerance and acceptance. So, it hurts a lot more when voters buy the arguments from religious groups and vote to take away our rights.

I thought that California was going to be the country's leader on this issue, as we are for a lot of issues (including banning smoking in public places and many environmental concerns). I am disappointed that 52% of the California voters let me down.

Why is it that our neighbor, Canada, permits gay marriage, but in the United States - the country that champions "freedom" - we allow religious zealots to change our constitution to discriminate against a minority??