"I don't need any further "rights" to consider myself an equal (and fully-valid) human being."

I totally agree Mitchell and I ain't writing this in a huff or as an attack - I KNOW I am an equal, valid human being, which makes me even more demanding of fair treatment under the law.

But don't forget that equality needs to be inclusive; rights need to BE AVAILABLE for those who need them, as well as for those who do not think they need them (yet), and even for those who may never need them. A person may not think they "need" any rights, but let's not forget about the many GLBTQ parents with children; these children depend on their parent's rights. A child should never be prevented from seeing his mother in the hospital just because his mother lacked civil rights. Worse scenarios than that happen regularly between parent and child.

If being an "outsider" feels right for you - go for it. No one shoe-horned you into your decision to live as you choose, just as no one shoe-horned me - we both choose how we want to live.

But do realize folks like myself avoid a lot of the social-isolation that SOME gay circles maintain and prefer to just live a life integrated into the local neighborhoods, businesses, schools, churches, etc., making friends first and learning of people's love-orientations later.

My biggest criticism of those who disagree with "which right is more important" (like marriage) is that they rarely consider the countless CHILDREN of LGBTQ parents who do not get to vote for any right. THEY deserve equality also.

Oh, Mitchell...and Chris, for that matter!

The debate around marriage has been so adeptly formed around the terms "rights" and "equality" that we overlook the fact that what is deprived of same-sex couples by DOMA and various state-level acts are privileges confeered upon opposite-sex couples through civil marriage. Singletons are as deprived as same-sex couples when it comes to the privileges of tax-exempt inheritance, survivor's benefits under Social Security and other entitlements, the automatic assumption of medical decision-making authority, and so on; and civil unions do nothing to confer these privileges upon singletons. Arguing vociferously for the extension of these privileges to like consensual adult civil contracts, regardless of the sex and number equal or greater than two involved, provides no justice for those who live in singlehood.

I agree than I am equal to my opposite-sex married peers under the law. However, I have been stripped by DOMA and other laws of access to the privileges available to those peers through marriage. My partners and I deserve access to these privleges, just as do my single friends and neighbors.

It isn't for me an issue of feeling equal; that I feel. For me it is realistic. I have children by blood and adopted step children. If I end up in a situation where I am getting remarried and it happens to be a man that time around, I want him to be able to help care for my children if I am ill or incapacitated and for him to be able to act as a parent in legal capacity.
As for the outsider feeling great if that is for you. It isn't really for me, I am out and very involved in my community. I have a family and that family and that family has queer members and we should have the same rights and protections as anyone else has in their families. If my son decides to marry his boyfriend that should be no different from when my daughter decided to marry hers.
I am not saying that it is something that we must all do and all aspire to. But it is something that many of us want to do and to which we aspire and so we should not be forbidden this thing just because of who we are.
I live in a place where I can marry a woman or a man, but the federal agencies will only recognize one of those yet they have equal force under the state law.

Oh, but darling, not everyone is so touched by social resentment as to want in on the super cool club of "outsiders".

Some just settle for the boring conformity, and don't kid yourself about ever being a standard for what other queer people are/should settle for.

Thanks, you bigolpufter. That's the most cogent thing I've seen written on this subject in a long time. Children have absolutely nothing to do with it. That's just a big smokescreen put out by the right-wingers to distract people for the real issue which is, as you said, government granted PRIVILEGES that only accrue to married couples. That's unequal treatment under the law and must be abolished.

I agree that we should avoid letting our status, rights, etc. affect our self-esteem. If we do that, we've already lost.

I did want to mention that the argument in the brief that Chris points to is actually one that responds quite well to arguments often made in favor of marriage that see it as a substitute for more substantive reform, like in health care: we already do have the right to get married for health care, so letting me marry men instead of women for health care doesn't really improve things much.

And, no I'm not referring to anyone in specific.

Chris Crane and I have debated face-to-face at times when he lived here in Atlanta. He is definitely for full equality, as long as he gets his before everybody else. He don't want us "trannies" to be equal in anything, and has written that more times then I can count. I'm not surprised that he would have a skewed view of same-sex marriage as well.

Crane and John Averois (sp) have the same opinion of keeping trans people out of ENDA. It's an attitude shared by some of the important gay men who are contributors on Bilerico. They write their feelings about this on their private blogs and even use the "trannie" as a derogatory term. But, they come here and hide it, and others turn a blind eye to their bigotry.

I am a believer of karma. Crane and others will get theirs. Some will say that Crane already got his but didn't learn from it. Oh, well.

Monica, I am personally interested in knowing who those people are. As a bi person who has been through similar things through the years where we are excluded by certain people who should know better I can appreciate your feelings. Thank you for pointing this detail about him out to the rest if us. Knowing that a person is divisive within the queer community is of great value and know which of them are very selective when and how they express it is certainly of great value.

"...59-year-old writer, lifelong activist, and gadfly who sometimes makes Michael Petrelis and Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore look (by comparison) like pillars of the community."

Seriously? What was the need for this entirely needless and self-serving comment? Never mind the fact that Sycamore and Petrelis are two entirely different kinds of figures.

Of course, Mattilda's influence, known to anyone who's been involved in queer radical politics, doesn't require affirmation through such statements. I've never seen her write anything like this as a preface to her work.

Mitchell Halberstadt, on the other hand, clearly feels he has something to prove.