Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, January 6, 2012

Letter from a Bisexual Plunged into "Invisible Darkness"

Posted by on Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Dear The Stranger,

I commend Governor Gregoire on her support of same sex marriage. At the same time, I would like to express my disappointment in the isolation that further separates bisexuals and transgendered individuals as a result of her announcement of support for same sex marriage. Why not support Marriage Equality instead? Why not frame the words in a way that does not make the LGBT marriage campaign strictly for gays and lesbians? I am a bisexual woman and I am proud of who I am. I am with a wonderful man who is my best friend and who I one day look forward to marrying. At the same time, I am still a bisexual individual and it could be that I marry a woman. But this would NOT make me a lesbian, this would not qualify me under her speech. There are also my transgendered friends, who do not fall under the premises of her speech, who would not be considered nor consider themselves "same sex" as her support explicitly states. The move for same sex marriage is not just for gays and lesbians. There are bisexuals and transgendered/intersexual persons who want to get married too; or who are married, who have lives and relationships; hopes and dreams. We deserve to be included. By leaving us out of her speech, she relegates us to an invisible darkness; to shame and isolation; to pain and suffering. We deserve to be included in this. And as much as I support and love my gay and lesbian friends, our brothers and sisters, I love myself too. Please support MARRIAGE EQUALITY and not just same sex marriage or marriage for gays and lesbians.

Sincerely, Shaunita Felder

Discuss.

 

Comments (78) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
TVDinner 2
As a card-carrying, honest-to-Pete bisexual, I have this to say to Shaunita: wut?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on January 6, 2012 at 10:54 AM · Report this
Fnarf 3
If you wanted to marry a woman, how the hell would that not be same-sex marriage? You want a special certificate that says "bisexual" on it or something?

Sounds to me like another bisexual who thinks "plunged into invisible darkness" means "not talking about MEEEEEE".

No offense intended to bisexuals without this personality disorder.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
SchmuckyTheCat 4
Nobody ever prevented bisexuals from marrying their opposite gender partners. Now nobody will prevent them from marrying their same gender partners. What the hootenanny is she complaining about? If it's just verbiage in a press release, GET A GRIP ON REALITY, honey.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on January 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
5
The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking.
Posted by Kyleen on January 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Allyn 6
How do you say "potato"?

The bill will not be exclusionary; the LW will be able to marry either gender preferred. She can marry a man now in a "straight" marriage, no matter how she defines herself or they define their marriage. Soon she'll be able to marry a woman in a "gay" marriage and she can still define herself and her marriage however she'd like.

She cannot/will not be able to enter into a "bi" marriage, since currently-defined marriage requires you choose one person. So, is LW looking for polygamy? Is that what she's suggesting we make legal?
Posted by Allyn on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
7
Isn't this the same issue that Rick Santorum raised?

What if 2 women and 1 guy want to get married?
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM · Report this
TVDinner 8
Like I said: wut?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on January 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM · Report this
9
If the darkness is so INVISIBLE, who does she know it's THERE? Huh? HUH??!?!
Posted by Actionsquid on January 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Womyn2me 10
Actually,with any luck we can all just get plain old married, instead of hetero/same-sex/gay/lesbian/homo/or whatever married.

Posted by Womyn2me http://http:\\www.shelleyandlaura.com on January 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Badger 11
It sounds like she would rather bitch about semantics than support same sex marriage. Being able to marry either a man or a woman is a pretty sweet deal, gay marriage would allow me that option. It would also allow transgender people to marry members of the same or opposite sex.

Stop whining because you weren't called out specifically in a speech, gay marriage and marriage equality mean the same thing. Perhaps that invisible darkness comes from having your head stuck in your ass.
Posted by Badger on January 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM · Report this
12
I attack the darkness!
Posted by Kyleen on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM · Report this
13
Oh please. Gregoire just didn't mention all of the concomitant permutations allowed by same sex marriage because she actually wants to support this thing. If she starts talking transgendered/bisexual/whatever, that will only erode support. Let's just get this thing passed and perhaps she can somewhat salvage her legacy as a Republican, excuse me, Democrat.
Posted by Why are there cars? on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
balderdash 14
What a fucking whiner. The right to marry who you want is by definition an inclusive idea. If marrying anyone you want, regardless of gender, is legal, that pretty much makes your options entirely open. Did you want the governor to come to your house to give you special personal permission? Did you want your own private amendment to the state constitution?

Goddammit, Dominic, why'd you post this whiny self-absorbed tripe? Now I'm mad at bisexuals, and I am one, so that's a problem.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on January 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
Foghorn Leghorn 15
Life is hard.

Isn't darkness invisible by definition?
Posted by Foghorn Leghorn on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM · Report this
16
It must be very effective "invisible darkness". I don't think that anyone with an ounce of reason can find it.
Posted by demo kid http://www.effinunsound.com on January 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 17
Fucking kook. Dipshits like this are what gives bisexuals a bad name.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM · Report this
18
I demand a separate press release for every point on the Kinsey scale ! Plus a reading of a list of every possible gender identity and variation in all future speeches regarding marriage equality.
Posted by randomitis on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM · Report this
D. Tooley 19
How about 'civil unions' for everyone and leave marriage to the couple - and government as far as possible out of the bedroom.
Posted by D. Tooley http://motleytools.com/blog on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
blip 20
Whining aside, 'marriage equality' is much better political-speak than 'same-sex marriage.' She's annoying as fuck but she's got a point.
Posted by blip on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
21
wah wah wah wah wah.

This whining might carry more weight if said letter writer wasn't in a marriage-track LTR (at least based on what she said) with someone she can already legally marry ... like seemingly 90% of all bisexual women.

Actually, no, it would still be weird if she was in a relationship with a woman and crying over the wording of a law that would enable her to marry her gf.
Posted by genevieve on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
22
Facepalm.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
seatackled 23
I don't think bisexuals are excluded, as Felder will have the right to marry a woman. But marriage equality is a better, more inclusive term. The argument is that calling for same-sex marriage or gay marriage suggests that there's a movement for special rights. Anyway, when Dan and Terry get married, they're probably not going to refer to each other as "my gay husband"; it will be "my husband." And what they're (and we're) after is marriage, not "gay marriage."
Posted by seatackled on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 24
"Why not support Marriage Equality instead?"

This is Marriage Equality.

"Why not frame the words in a way that does not make the LGBT marriage campaign strictly for gays and lesbians?"

Because bisexuals can already get married to opposite-sex partners and trans individuals are covered by this movement. All rights are being fought for.

@5: "The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking."

Right. Fight for your rights, then fight for the public to use the most appropriate language.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 6, 2012 at 11:23 AM · Report this
AmyC 25
@20 - i agree with blip. this woman needs to get a grip, but marriage equality is a better term to use than same-sex marriage--not because of leaving bisexuals out, or whatever, but because marriage equality sounds more like stopping a discriminatory practice and same-sex marriage sounds more like creating a new/separate thing for certain people. marriage equality just makes it easier to play the semantics game.
Posted by AmyC on January 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM · Report this
26
If you marry a member of the same sex, it's a same sex marriage regardless of your orientation. If you marry a member of the opposite sex, it's already legal. Yes, even for bisexuals. It's not "Straight people only" marriage.
Posted by charlie on January 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
27
If the words in a governor's speech are enough to plunge you into shame and darkness, perhaps you shouldn't listen to governor's speeches?

At some point we have to take responsibility for our own lives; fighting for marriage equality is right and good, but allowing one's sense of self worth to be dependent on the wording choices of a politician is a bridge too far.
Posted by also on January 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 28
There's actually a very simple answer for all your questions: It's difficult to discuss sexual philosophy from the 90's to people whose heads are still locked in the 50's. Heck, they've been on non-stop squawk-box ever since a black man became our president. How are they going to parse the nuances of sexual attraction? These people have money & they vote, although they are dying out, which is all to the good.

So while we can discuss sexual mores here on the Slog at an adult level (for the most part-- lookin' at you, SB), Gregoire still has to address the rest of Washington like they're pre-schoolers.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
29
This person wants to marry a man and she has the right to do that already. The new law would also allow her to have her second choice of marrying a woman. Is she seriously getting all uptight just because the governor didn't list every potential group of people that would be helped by same sex marriage? Can you picture the governor getting up and saying "we must support marriage for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trisexuals, transgendered people, intersexual people (whatever the fuck those are), hermaphrodites, shemales, guys with small dicks, women with large clits, asexuals, women who spell women womyn..." and on and on and on. It would have taken forever, sounded idiotic and lost a ton of support. Some people get so hung up on terminology they completely miss what's important.
Posted by Root on January 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
thatsnotright 30
Apparently "Shaunita" is obsessed with labes. She can currently get married 50% of the time, she just doesn't want to be called a lesbian if she chooses to marry a woman. That argument holds no water, a gay man and a lesbian woman can currently marry and they don't automatically become "straight" do they? Marriage equality will not iterate sexuality, two members of the same sex could marry for economic reasons and never have sex, just as some opposite sex couples do today. As for transgendered people, I know couples who married before one partner transitioned who are still married so thay have, in effect, same-sex marriages already, no one has forced them to get divorced and their marriages have remained legally binding.
Posted by thatsnotright on January 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
Allyn 31
@19 – I agree.
I have long believed that we as a society should give the religious dweebs what they want: ownership of the word marriage. And 'we the people' should only issue "civil union" licenses. Any adult could choose one other adult to legally bind themselves; romance and the ideals of marriage might have nothing to do with one’s choice. Then people can feel free to toss around the terms husband, wife, gf, bf, partner, marriage, as they wish to – it would be a self-defined term and the religious nut-jobs could claim ownership of its definition all they want.
Posted by Allyn on January 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
More, I Say! 32
Oh eyeroll. "Persecuted and it feels so good."
Posted by More, I Say! on January 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
Rotten666 33
Identity politics run amok. What a rube.
Posted by Rotten666 on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
34
Oh, f*** me. This is why some people dislike those of us who do, or have, sat on the fence, sexuality-wise.

Shut the f*** up, as people have already said. This bill lets you marry whoever the hell you want.

Oh, you want a triad marriage? A (whatever it is past that) marriage? Great. Rewrite all the freaking property laws and inheritance laws to deal with when your stupid ass hasn't left a will. Then we'll talk. Otherwise, everything else is set up so that when two PEOPLE marry, pretty much everything else is gonna get handled.

I'm all for this bill. I'm all for any single person being able to marry any other single person they f***ing want to. This is NOT a trans issue. This is NOT a bi issue. This is straight up f***ing equality.

You're wanting special rights, not equal rights. Get in line.
Posted by dagard on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
very bad homo 35
This is the kind of person who has 1000 complaints about everything, I'm guessing.
Posted by very bad homo on January 6, 2012 at 11:40 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 36
fuck this shit. my preference is now to BAN ALL MARRIAGE, period.

Posted by Max Solomon on January 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Fnarf 37
@30, I know you meant "labels", but forgive me if at first glance I thought you were saying "labia".
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 6, 2012 at 11:47 AM · Report this
thatsnotright 39
@37 yes to the lables, and you're right, it does bring "labias" to mind.
Posted by thatsnotright on January 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
rinohog 40
The governor actually did include bisexuals and transgendered people in her speech.

http://www.governor.wa.gov/speeches/spee…
Posted by rinohog on January 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM · Report this
leek 41
Lesbians are totes into the labes. Straight men too, I guess.
Posted by leek on January 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
TVDinner 42
Wut?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on January 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM · Report this
43
I would like to announce my support for same sex marriage.

That is, if you want to get same-sex married. That is to say I support same sex marriages for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Of course the bisexuals can also marry someone of the opposite sex, unless they don't want to. Not that I want to categorize everyone rigidly, I also support the right of the intersexed and pansexual to marry...uhm...whoever it is they marry. Not that you have to be sexual, I also support the rights of asexuals to marry and not have sex. I am fully supportive of the rights of transgendered men who are bisexually asexual to marry in any and all configurations.

Fit THAT on a headline.
Posted by Lynx on January 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
44
Running low on page-views this week, so you had to haul out this red meat? (It's working.) Next, please.
Posted by Punditwatch on January 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 45
@40: BUT SHE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT BIMARRIAGE AND TRANSMARRIAGE!

My guess is that it wasn't explicit enough for her liking.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM · Report this
lucida c. 46
It seems to me that the problem is the idea of binary sexual identity (gay or straight rather than gay/straight/queer/bisexual/barsexual/pansexual/asexual/etc.) which is a real problem that makes bisexuals & others invisible -- not the specific language around marriage law that Gregoire used in that one speech. This isn't how I would have phrased the argument, nor is this particular argument the hill I would choose to die on, but I can see why she's upset.
Posted by lucida c. on January 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 47
@46: It is certainly a problem, but she is not being excluded by this movement, and her issue is social in dynamic, not legal.

" this would not qualify me under her speech. There are also my transgendered friends, who do not fall under the premises of her speech, who would not be considered nor consider themselves "same sex" as her support explicitly states"

This legislation ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to redefine marriage as not requiring a "man and woman". It is the first step, not the entirety of the struggle.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM · Report this
attitude devant 48
They gave you a card to carry, TV Dinner? I want a card! Waaah!
Posted by attitude devant on January 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM · Report this
blip 49
She's right that it's better to frame the issue in terms of equality rather than an LGBT issue, but wrong / annoying in how SHE frames HER argument. She's making it all about her own perceived marginalization and either ignores or doesn't understand the benefit of using language that will have a greater impact on public opinion.
Posted by blip on January 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM · Report this
50
What about vegans? Can we also get some gluten free marriage?
Posted by SeattleSeven on January 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
Griffin 51
Whinger. She makes us all look bad.
Posted by Griffin on January 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM · Report this
Gus 52
I don't like this letter writer.
Posted by Gus on January 6, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
Andy 53
God, shut UP! No one cares about your Gender Studies 101 class.
Posted by Andy on January 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
54
@7 Then http://youtu.be/umhuM3M_mfI

(NSFW-ish)
Posted by Zuulabelle http://www.mellophant.com on January 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
More, I Say! 55
@46, doesn't calling oneself "bisexual" reinforce the gender binary?
Posted by More, I Say! on January 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
56
Is there some sort of check box on the WA marriage certificate to indicate the type of sex you will be having or what exactly will be going through your head while you're having it? Otherwise it hardly matters what your orientation is. Nasty sex -check!
Posted by Mr. J on January 6, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
57
What an odd complaint. Supporting same-sex marriage IS supporting the end to marriage discrimination based on sex (cause opposite-sex marriage is already recognized everywhere). I support equal marriage too, but I'm not going to bitch about someone who was previously a marriage bigot finally seeing the light and saying that they no longer oppose same-sex marriage.

In 2003, Canada recognized the constitutional civil right of gay people to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of the sex of the person they wanted to legally marry...and all the gays and lesbians and transgendered folk who live here and wanted to get hitched didn't get "same-sex married", or "trans-married", the just got MARRIED .
Posted by ignatz ratzkywatzky on January 6, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 58
@20 and @25, agreed...in all the mire of her shitty writing, and self-importance, she inevitably stumbles on a good point. Marriage Equality should be easier to sell and sounds a hell of a lot better than Same Sex Marriage.

The rest of it...ZOMG. I feel dumber for reading it.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on January 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 60
Ms. Felder has too much free time.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on January 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM · Report this
TVDinner 62
@48: Got it at the convention. Don't tell me you let your Amalgamated Oppressed Carpet Munchers and Sausage Swallowers Union membership lapse and missed the convention notifications! Surely you remember our motto, at least? "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed?"

Snort. Some deviant you are.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on January 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
macavitykitsune 63
I'm (a heavily lesbian-leaning) bisexual. My fiancee's bisexual. Our relationship would be classified - and our marriage is going to be classified - as a lesbian relationship/marriage. The last I checked, we're both still bisexual. What the fucking fuck is this fuckery about bisexual invisibility? Jeez, complain much?
Posted by macavitykitsune on January 6, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
Looking For a Better Read 64
@54 - whaddya mean, NSFW-ish? Show tunes are ALWAYS fully-NSFW. Jeez, you trying to get a guy fired????
Posted by Looking For a Better Read on January 6, 2012 at 4:49 PM · Report this
mr. herriman 65
cant see the forest for the trees.

"is there a way we can make this more about me? that's be great. thx."

p.s. seattleseven, @50 - LOVE IT.
Posted by mr. herriman on January 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 67
@66 - Gregoire didn't say "gay marriage" once.

Please explain how the term "same-sex marriage" is not inclusive, and also say what term you'd prefer.

I'm not trying to be snarky here - I'm just bewildered that you find injury in this.
Posted by Free Lunch on January 6, 2012 at 7:15 PM · Report this
Troy from IN 68
If you ever wonder why bisexuals get angry, read through these comments with an open mind
Posted by Troy from IN http://bipaganman.tumblr.com/ on January 6, 2012 at 7:30 PM · Report this
Prairie Dog 69
@46 What is a "barsexual"? A person who only has sex with people they pick up in bars? Or maybe they only have sex in bars? Does gender matter in barsexual relations, or is it an equal opportunity Happy Hour for all? Maybe I've not been going to the right bars . . .

Posted by Prairie Dog on January 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM · Report this
70
I had no idea bisexuals were apparently their own gender as well. Letter writer, take note: this is why people don't take you seriously.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on January 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM · Report this
71
@68 Where's the problem here? When all the other bisexuals call out this one for being totally unreasonable and self-centered and nitpicking something that objectively increases rights because it isn't perfect enough? Yeah, we're so fucking mean. As a bisexual, I'm going to chime in with the advice to get the fuck over it.
Posted by sahara29 on January 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM · Report this
72
Hmmm . . . interesting that a bi-identified person would not find language like "same-sex marriage" inclusive. Bi the way, just so you know, for the last few year bi activists like Sheela Lambert, founder of the Bi Writers Association, have been pushing for the media and public officials to get away from the language of "gay marriage" and use "same-sex marriage" instead, so that bisexuals would be more aptly included in the movement for marriage equality and not erased.

So I guess, Shaunita, that you can blame bisexual activists for the language that the governor uses. I suppose you think bi activists have not gone far enough? Frankly, the issue of bi visibility is fraught with all kinds of semantic pitfalls, sometimes without any conscious intent. In my opinion, "marriage equality" is a great statement--by implication, it includes gender variance more than "same-sex marriage"--but I still don't think that in all cases it makes gender variant bisexuals significantly more visible. Something to work on.
Posted by MaxtheCommunist on January 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
73
What I don't get about this, as a bisexual, is that "same-sex marriage" is precisely the term you use when you want to emphasize that not everybody in a same-sex relationship is necessarily gay. How on earth does it leave out bisexuals? Yes, we are also attracted to the opposite sex, but opposite-sex marriage is already legal! If she ends up marrying the guy she is currently with, her marriage won't be affected at all by the legality of same-sex marriage in Washington. That kind of marriage is already recognized.

And this sort of confusion really doesn't help bisexual activists at all. One big complaint that gays and lesbians have is that bisexuals don't acknowledge how society privileges us when we're in opposite-sex relationships. Even those of us in OS relationships who are very open about the fact that we're bi, not straight, and fight against bi erasure, still get our relationships recognized and celebrated by the state and society in a way they wouldn't be if they were same-sex. Acting like her opposite-sex marriage needs to be roped in with the same-sex marriage cause is the kind of myopia that rightly gets called out by LGs.

There is a good conversation to be had about how the use of GAY marriage and GAY rights excludes the bisexuals to whom it also applies. (One that particularly irks me is the tendency lately for anti-bullying activists to refer to "gay and transgender" or "gay, lesbian and transgender" students, as though specifically leaving out the B in LGBT.) But this isn't that conversation.
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on January 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
74
Pretty much the only good point she makes is the one about transgender people (in that, in states that recognize transgender people it's their gender, not their sex, that determines who they can marry - since two gay men where one is trans would technically be of opposite biological sexes, but the same gender).
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on January 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM · Report this
doloresdaphne 75
I can't help but think this letter was chosen (out of all the kazillion letters the Stranger gets) because it's ridiculous and irrational, and paints people complaining about Bisexual invisibility as irrational, so us sloggers could take the piss out of the letter writer.

I'm guessing Dan would approve too, since he's the one who pokes fun of us whenever we complain about invisibility.
Posted by doloresdaphne on January 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
76
@75: Well, I didn't post the letter, but... in the final accounting... Dom's choice to post it 1. made it possible for lots of reasonable, sane bisexuals -- the overwhelming majority, in my experience, but underrepresented among the authors of letters claiming to speak on behalf of the bisexual community -- to weigh in and make it clear that this sort of buttsore inanity does not, in fact, represent the bisexual community and 2. made it impossible for this letter writer to complain, in a subsequent letter, that the Stranger didn't publish a letter she sent us once long ago about a bisexual issue of some import because the Stranger is committed to silencing the bisexual community, we do everything we can to make the problem of bisexual invisibility worse, blah blah Dan Savage is mean to us blah blah blah, etc.

I'd say publishing this letter was worth it just to read Whoop Di Do's interesting and informed comment.
Posted by Dan Savage on January 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
77
I like the phrase "marriage equality" because I think it also helps emphasize that both parties in the marriage are equal to each other.

Obviously far and away the most important thing about removing the sex/gender restriction on the parties to a marriage is the equality of access to marriage for all people including same-sex couples. But as a straight woman, I will admit to enjoying it from a feminist perspective - because I am convinced that some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" So in that sense, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage might indeed destroy their conception of what marriage is, by redefining it as a relationship of two equal partners.

Just a little bonus.
Posted by tau on January 9, 2012 at 7:14 AM · Report this
78
@tau >>> some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" >>>

This. Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.
Posted by EricaP on January 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM · Report this
mr. herriman 79
everybody read @77. tau's onto something.
Posted by mr. herriman on January 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
80
Wow, it's no wonder so many conservative people are afraid of letting us have a political say - we can't even have a basic discussion about terminology without ganging up on each other.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Posted by pretty basic stuff on January 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM · Report this
81
Wow, it's no wonder so many conservative people are afraid of letting us have a political say - we can't even have a basic discussion about terminology without ganging up on each other.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Posted by pretty basic stuff on January 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
83
@82: Have you read any of the comments us "bi folk" have been making on this thread? I agree with you about the term "gay marriage" not being inclusive, but that's not the case with "same-sex marriage," which is what the LW is bitching about here. Reading comprehension - it helps!

Secondly, why do you assume that because we disagree with the LW, that we put up with people saying shit like "bisexual people don't exist"? I call out biphobia all the time, and in fact, a big part of my beef with this letter is that it makes it so much harder for us to get real, genuine biphobia taken seriously when people see bis like this LW complaining about nothing and claiming to speak for the entire bi community when they do.

TL;DR - If you're such a great bisexual activist, actually read what your fellow bis have to say and stop being so fucking condescending.
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on January 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
84
I unfortunately agree with most of the sentiment. This is nearly a non-issue. I do think Marriage equality is a better term. However bisexual people need to complain about much more real issues. For example by being out as bisexual I have been harassed at work and school by both gay and straights and legal advocacy is actually necessary to sue the pants off idiotic people. OR the lack of education amongst professional medical workers including therapists, couples therapist etc. on bisexuality. OR the fact that when I was in a same sex relationship I was punched by a homophobic straight guy but I could NOT prosecute a hate crime because the courts decided that if I said I was bisexual the offender could have thought I was "straight" - even though he called me a faggot, and said I just want to suck cocks now etc. (i was dating girls before this but told him I was bi). OR the Mental health effects unique to bisexual people in regards to stigma (at a recent book signing a bi author who ran a bi men's group informed us of the suicides amongst bi men within one group over the years including THAT very day!) OR the lack of a bisexual community and lack of funds to build community to create safe places for bi people within LGBT. OR sexual harassment issues - I was harassed by a straight female teacher in undergrad and a bi male friend was harassed by a gay male teacher - in both instances we were asked to have sex to prove our professed sexual orientation. There are REAL bisexual issues. The other issue is of course there are actually only a handful of out bisexual people in my city and of those only a few who want or can be politically involved. So let's not waste time on Bullshit and remember that some newly out bisexual men and women are actually dying or in dispair, depressed and stigmatized. And whole lot more are afraid, closeted and isolated and don't know what to do about it.
More...
Posted by Hermes on March 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy