Rebecca, I quite agree with you that the right to marry doesn't end the problems faced by LGB and T people, and that for those without the ability to make a living, use public space safely, and secure decent housing, the right to marry is an inadequate victory. What I was trying to say, perhaps unsuccessfully, is that marriage is commonly treated as the epitome of citizenship in our society. THAT's a prime reason why it's guarded so fiercely. It confers a social status, above and beyond its legal status. I think the specter of citizenship underlies a lot of the debates about marriage and that there's a general, if implicit realization that it's harder to deny a whole host of other rights to people, once you've you've recognized them as being full citizens. Not impossible, but harder.

So I think having the right to marry advantages LGB people when arguing for nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws. I leave out T people here explicitly, since I think that most of the pro-equality conversation about marriage has suggested that gender and sexual orientation are fixed and immutable. That's a real problem because it tacitly gives judges and legislators (and employers and everyone else) to divide the world into "normal" gay people and "abnormal" transgender people.

Ah, but Alex, legislative votes apparently no longer represent the will of the people. The only way to do so is through a popular vote. At least so say the homocon activists (to appropriate your word). Vermont's Constitution, of course, doesn't permit voter-initiated ballot measures, although it does permit "advisory" ballot measures, so long as they are initiated by the legislature. The homocons are screaming that the only legitimate course of action would have been for the legislature to initiate an advisory ballot process and then to acquiesce to the desires of the people as expressed in the vote.

I wonder if they think that advisory measures should be initiated before any legislative vote on any measure? I'm guessing not...