Very glad you wrote this.
What the California Prop-8 vote, district-by-district, showed, that there was a clear majority bias against gay marriage rights in many Black congressional districts (even if that majority in some districts was slim). What becomes clear on analysis is that many, many African-Americans older than, say, 40, see gay marriage not as a civil rights issue as much as they see it as a bible-based moral issue. This holds true, but to a lesser extent, in Hispanic districts. The challenge is to get people to see this as a legal/civil rights issue first and foremost.
R.

Well, I'm neither black nor gay, but to the extent that your assertion is true I would suggest that it is because the main opposition to gay rights comes from religious quarters and religious notions or the culture vesitges of American religious thought are strong in the black community.

But, for the record I suspect that your underlying opinion that one group that is discriminated against should logically side with another that is discriminated against for an entirely different reason, doesn't really make any sense. I'm guessing that 80% of the U.S. population feels persecuted because of their membership in SOME sort of minority - heck, even CHRISTIANS feel persecuted! By nautre, I think, many humans need persecution as psychological fuel.

I disagree w Fin (above).
Gays do not get off on being persecuted. Nor do Jews or blacks. Nor does any minority group. I am more than uncomfortable with how easily and offhandedly Fins dismisses Safe_Bet's Amy's concern.

Without question it is religious, but, even as a fierce defender of our African cousins, I don't think any group could ever have been persecuted more than gays as a whole. Remember, they are in all our collective groups, and rarely have been assimilated with equality - 3 exceptions: Native American Houston, Greater Polynesia, post-modern SF/LA/NYC- all 3 curiously lacking one thing- the lack of "christian" authorities.

While enslavement is indeed hell on earth, gays have been, simply put, EXECUTED by so many religious regimes since Rome's fall and Los Biblios misinterpretation that they clearly represent the majority not the minority opinion, of, clearly, haters with laughably misinterpreted scroll based evidence for such hate.

BTW, this phrase is worn for a reason and has very awkward intonation. All writers, and humans in general, are served well to avoid using it, with any specific community whatsoever substituted in this harmful cliche,

"I'm not saying that it is EVERY member of the black community. "

peace out

Loved your link. Love you. To be clear, in my opinion, human rights apply to ALL humans...ALL of the time. Religious beliefs used as the basis for cruelty and in-humanity are blasphemous. They are not based on LOVE, which is a supreme aspect of nearly all religions. We can no more claim to be Christian/religious and clearly hate others than we can pick and choose parts of the Constitution to embrace while slicing out those parts that would enable Equality for ALL. Oh wait, many people do those things, don't they? Hatred, cruelty and bigotry have no place in any practice of religion, nor do they have anything to do with exclusionary practices under the Constitution.
I am not sure why persecuted groups often seem not able to join forces and see that they are fighting the same fights. Some of my black gay students seem to face many more challenges than those of individuals who are gay whites or straight blacks...
and...ps: by the way: On this planet, I can't believe that anyone EVER NEEDS PERSECUTION.
This was a strong and important post. I seethe frequently about these issues.

To Muse--I'm hopeful that the new California ruling restoring the right of gays to marry there will be upheld.

With respect, I think the problem most Blacks who have a problem with gay marriage have the same problem as most whites who do. And I think that problem is rooted in religion and connotation of the term “marriage”.

My understanding is that California's “Civil-Union “ status already confers all legal rights that marriage does. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because if it doesn't, it Should.

The problem that religious people have with the state granting “Gay Marriage” involves flat out the problem of calling the union “Marriage”

This brings in the notion of the “Sanctity” (literally holiness) of “marriage” as well as it being the Sacrament of Marriage. The state has no authority or power to “Sanctify” anything and actually has no business being in the marriage licensing business to begin with. These are church related matters.

What the state can do is sanction civil unions. It should get out of the notion of granting “Marriage Licenses” to anyone, homo, hetero, bi or omni sexual.

From now on, the state should recognize civil-unions, period. If someone wants to “Marry” that is something for them to take up with their religious community. Any number of Christian and other denominations would be delighted to sanctify Gay marriages, properly, as a religious rite.

And those sects (cults?) that wouldn't recognize the sanctity of gay marriage are free to not do so. Simple as that. As a matter of law they would still be required to recognize civil unions of gays (and straights- since there would be no "civil marriage")

Want to achieve universal gay marriage? Take the term “marriage” out of play in the civil arena. Restore it to religious communities to which it properly belongs, and in which there are any number who would truly find it a blessing to sanctify the union of two souls.

Tell the state to mind its own business, it hasn't the power to grant the sanctity of Marriage to anyone. It can and should be forced to grant the right of civil union to any couple.

Long ago Noah was "married" at the courthouse by a county clerk. Ah yes, the marriage "contract." - the Churches may be involved in marriage but the State is most definitely involved in divorce.

Token all 50 states regulate marriage and always have and w no legal tie to religion so states certainly can extend marriage laws to include gay people. Marriage has never, in our nation, been exclusively or even mostly a religious institutional event or even concept. There is, in a democracy, no predisposition for religious institutions to corner the market on marriage.

Amy, I've been sitting here for ten minutes trying to figure out how to frame my answer to you. I concluded that the easiest way to answer is by answering your questions one by one. But before I do, I have to insist that there is something inherently wrong with your question in the first place. But it begins with the ridiculous need for pollsters to even break out these stats. Having said as much, I should add that I don't believe polls...they are manipulative and yet another form of propaganda.
Now:
1. Is it as wide spread as it appears?

I have no idea and I would suggest neither do they. I have been black all my life and had the fortune of living and traveling all over the world. I don't know many homophobic people. As in any other race, there are those who have their stupid religious phobias and beliefs. I'm not convinced they are any more prolific in the African American community than any other. By large measure, the African American community has always been one that has welcomed those whom others reject.

2. Do you feel that the LGBTQI community is “stealing” your hard fought rights?

There are perhaps those who feel that way. The African American race is not monolithic. Many feel that African Americans finally won the civil rights battle and all that had been achieved and realized was diminished by the Women's Right movement. The hierarchy had been: White man, Black man, white woman, black woman. After winning Civil Rights/Women's Rights, it became:
White man, White woman, Black woman, Black man.

3. Do you think that the fight for LGBTQI rights and your rights are not comparable?
Again, I don't and don't know anyone who does.

4. Is your community and culture inherently homophobic?

This is a problematic question, though I understand. Culture?
We're Americans Amy. You offer a number of links as if they validate your confusion. I don't know why Whites do that. Why must I or any other African American be defined by what a few do or say. It would never occur to me to align you with Hitler because you both or white, or decide some idiot like Glenn Beck speaks for the entire white race. Hold on to your hat...that's racism.

This is as short and succinct as I can be with some complex questions that really do deserve a greater response, but I'd be here the next three days. :) I hope this helps.

@Jonathan

that's precisely the point. those who scream about the sanctity of "MARRIAGE" DO see it as a religious sacrament PRECISELY because of the use of that word. Don't go trying to apply being logical or consistent to the way people believe or behave, that almost never works

It comes down to: would gays rather get "married", first by civil union, then by church,(like everyone else would at that point) or would they rather sit and fight over the meaning of the word "MARRIAGE" .

I think it's silly on both side, but it is none the less what is happening, I talk to people in the t party who have no problem with equal civil unions for gays, but stick at calling them "Marriage". They also have no problem with gays getting married in any church that will marry them just not the one "I" belong to. Go figure, but it's true.

And if you want to call your civil union a "marriage" just because you and your partner feel "married" while a religious couple has to have the church sprinkle some holy water over their civil union before it's a marriage, chacon a son gout.

the point is that all this would dry up and blow away if the states just reprinted their "marriage licenses' to be
"civil union" licenses and said, sorry, we dont do "marriage" anymore. Yes, to the people who are fighting about it , the word "MARRIAGE" is that important. If you'd understand that, the issue would be a lot clearer.

This is a problematic question, though I understand. Culture?
We're Americans Amy. You offer a number of links as if they validate your confusion. I don't know why Whites do that. Why must I or any other African American be defined by what a few do or say. It would never occur to me to align you with Hitler because you both or white, or decide some idiot like Glenn Beck speaks for the entire white race. Hold on to your hat...that's racism."

First of all Fay, as I said in my post, I don't intend to fight about this, I am asking for clarification, not defensiveness. HONEST!
Comments like, "I don't know why Whites do that" are counterproductive.

As to your points, (again trying to get this clear), are you saying that the majority of blacks support LGBTQI rights? That would contradict the facts of how they actually voted then (I agree with the accuracy of most polls, BTW)

The voting in support of Proposition 8, for example, was only 27% of White voters supported it, while 54% of African American voters did. I know that you have stated that the African American community isn't monolithic, which then makes these numbers even MORE startling.

Lastly, I'd ask for some further clarification in regards to your contention that "African American community has always been one that has welcomed those whom others reject." . From my personal knowledge and from everything I've seen and heard, black gays and lesbians are the MOST repressed and reviled subset of the LGBTQI community. They are routinely treated worse by people of their own color than they are by any other. That would seem to be in direct disagreement with what you stated.

Once again, please understand that I do NOT want to get into a pissing contest about who's right and who's wrong. I'm just trying to understand better the "whys" and the "hows".

And if you doubt the phenomenon of people willing to fight and froth at the mouth over the meaning of a word, just yell N***** in a crowded theater

Token's point is spot on, but, sits on Christians false construct that "Marriage between a Man and a Woman" is somehow their tradition ... remember, under their own claim of apostolistic succession either it happened back in the day, and that was the way, or it didn't. Well, all Christians of all stripes would do well to consult was is so often an oracle of truth through thinly veiled revision, the esteemed Catholic Encyclopedia.

A cursory Google search there on keyword concubinage will quickly prove, without question, the false construct that Christian marriage was the norm, when in fact it was most certainly the exception. The Church wants to go back 2 Thousand Years ... well, until less than 1 Thousand Years Ago it was CONCUBINES GALORE!

Token wrote: "My understanding is that California's “Civil-Union “ status already confers all legal rights that marriage does. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because if it doesn't, it Should."

Yes they should but they don't. according to the
General Accounting Office there are 1,049 additional benefits that hetero marriages confer than do civil unions or domestic partnerships. California's was better than many, but, for example, my wife STILL had to produce our DP paperwork and a Power of Attorney to be able to visit me in the hospital and STILL had to get the hospital administrator involved and threaten to sue their asses before she and the kids could get in to see me. Think that kind of crap would happen with a "married" hetero couple????

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

Amy

so why not just do away with the states ability to grant "marriage" at all and make everyone get a "civil union"? how quickly do you think they could solve the problems with civil union then?

It all comes down to the power of the WORD - and nothing in being "civil unioned" by the state (like everyone else) prevents you from being Married by whatever sanctioning body you need to snctify your union.

and as far as who REALLY has "true Title" to the WORD Marriage? let those who care worry about it, I don't

i'm going with "inherently homophobic". and yeah, relatively widespread. i'll place the blame on religious upbringing mostly. i don't feel your struggle takes away from mine, but many do. as you know, our struggle isn't over, seems to be getting worse sometimes, so many aren't going to worry about you. only so many pieces of the pie to go around. don't know if i feel that our struggles are equivalent. read both sides of the argument, and feel that yours is absolutely a matter of civil rights, but...perhaps i'm too personally involved to be objective. i know several cases personally where people have been shunned by family due to their sexual orientation. and a lot of us don't talk about it too much for fear of upsetting our more conservative family members. it's just generally assumed that if you're black and a certain age, you're a christian, and hold those beliefs. nobody wants to give g'ma a stroke by telling her anything different. hope this helps.

Amy, your response is the reason I took so long to decide to even answer at all. The answers simply aren't that simple. I can only speak from my own experience, which is my point entirely...there is no "one" answer. As long as we summarily count by race...race will continue to be an issue. This percentage of Blacks, that percentage of whites...what is the value of that?
Calm down. I'm not calling you a racist.
My final statement is this...my daughter is gay as are many of her friends. My conclusions are based on my own life experience and what they have related to me.

amy,

your question is an awesome one but it goes beyond this particular situation and into human power dynamics in general....

Typically, oppressed people and groups will turn against one another and compete with one another, rather than turning against the power that is oppressing them. This makes sense because it's simply easier.

Further, if powerful oppressors are aware of this dynamic they can exploit it to remind separate disempowered groups of their differences rather than their similarities...(the history of black people and poor white people in the south is a great example of a place this was massively exploited...)

Also, when groups or individuals achieve more power there is a tendency for them to identify with other groups/individuals in power than those who are still disempowered.....I know I'm explaining this badly. Or maybe it seems completely obvious. But a close friend of mine, for example, has struggled all of her life with being discriminated against because of her weight. She spent several years as a teen age anorexic and may have permanently harmed her body in that way...but she survived it. and now she focuses on trying to find acceptance and tolerance of her body just exactly as it is. She has found it baffling that Dan Savage, who is an extraordinary champion of gay rights, to express disgust and, well, occasionally what sounds like hate toward fat people. It frustrates her to no end partly because she thinks of all people, he would be one who would get it about discrimination and characteristics you can't choose/not choose about yourself through "willpower"....

But this is what I have come to understand about sociology/power dynamics. It's a much bigger issue than any single group or individual.

Add to this, though, of course, the history of organization of people which goes against this natural tendency of humans to pit exploited groups against one another, and instead, to join together for equality, and it is the way that all movements achieve their goals. During the 1960's people of many races and groups joined together in the struggle for black civil rights...and when people of both genders joined in the struggle for women's rights progress was made....right now one of the beautiful things about the struggle for gay rights is that younger people regardless of their orientation seem to "get it" about how much it matters. Gay people only account for about ten percent of the population or so, so it really matters that there are many other people on board too.

Anyway, I just mean to say that natural power dynamics (which go against oppressed groups coming together at all) can be overcome, but it takes work and building bridges between individuals and communities...etc.. Everything I type here is probably completely obvious....but I think the question is worth asking in a seeking understanding kind of way, which is I think, the spirit in which you are asking it.

cheers. (sorry so long & rambly...this topic is one that is of endless interest/speculation for me as well...the overall dynamics of humans and groups of human...)

ps one last thing: your post mentions blacks and gays but I suspect that there are two other strong issues going on and muddles the cleanness of the divide..age and class...

just a thought.

To Token nothing absolutely nothing in any proposal for gay marriage suggests even remotely that religious institutions would have to recognise those marriages. Don't people know that? No proposed law would even vaguely require any church, synagogue, etc., to do or recognise anything or to ratify any previous secular marriage ceremony. Don't people get this? And don't people see that in a democracy NO religions get to tell secular law how to work? The fact is that the Current situation, where religions are demanding things from secular law institutions and getting them is the oddity, the abberation..? That...that is what's wrong.

From my experience working with African-American, Hispanic, women, gay and lesbian, and Muslim and Jewish colleagues and clients, bringing up the very idea that one is being treated unfairly will result in additional punishment, ostracism, and often immediate dismissal from just about any institution besides prison. For that, there's "the hole." After dismissal from employment, you'd better hope it's a large industry in your area and those in upper management don't know one another.

Is it the same for gays and lesbians? Absolutely. Institutionalized racism, sexism, ageism, disability-ism, obesity-ism, and homophobia, etc. are alive and kicking. And clearly, so is faith-related discrimination.

Does this situation foster anger and resentment? You bet. Regardless of your "it's not the same thing" comment, Fins, it is all the same in that each group is a minority that has historically been denied the same rights and privileges as landowning Protestant white men, and that privilege still exists today.

TO ALL: Amy is absolutely right abt marriage conferring more specific rights in virtually every state where there are also civil unions. From tax benefits to all sorts of other equalities/inequalities. this is a matter of some people feeling threatened by having to share marriage status and the word itself w people who find sexual and familial comfort in ways they do not. To hell w those bigots. Law must never cater to those base impulses.

This system of discrimination and punishment results in what is called learned helplessness; we/they become resigned to the idea that no matter what attempts are made to resolve a problem, nothing will change.

I had may African-American, Hmong, and Hispanic clients, and a few with chronic mental and physical illnesses in my last job, and they were always SHOCKED that I could see the discrimination too and was willing to say so. That solidarity of experience and awareness builds those bridges among the groups.

We need more outreach among us, more education, and more compassion. As an open lesbian who always stood with my "minority" clients, they frequently wanted to return the favor when it happened to me, and it took all kinds of work to get them to worry about their own issues. If they tried to support me, they would be punished for it. I could only be fired, which is what happened. They would be remanded to prison, and their treatment terminated.

When you see it in an institution, it's obvious that it's about power and control.

s/b I have many...

@Jonathan

The Short answer to all your questions is, No, they don't
Nor do they particularly care

You can't tell people how they should feel about the connotations of the word “Marriage” any more than you can tell people not to be offended by being called N******

And while it may be true that no religion is supposed to have special privileges, when you get enough of it's adherents together and they form a voting block, you'll find it has a large say in how things get done.

The feeling is that if the state sanctions something that they don't believe in, they are being forced to sanction it as well. That something is the abomination of gays being allowed to partake of the sacrament of Marriage.

There is no problem if the State wants to grant them Civil Union with the same status as marriage. Just don't call it “Marriage”

Oddly enough, if some wacko outfit like the Unitarians wants to hold ceremonies and call that marriage, that doesn't bother them either.

So if a Gay wants to get civil unioned by a Unitarian Shaman and call it getting married, well it aint Right, but at least I'm not being made party to it.

And, you'll find that most of them wouldn't mind the state getting out of the “marriage” business at all, since it's a sacrament anyway, and we have the one true way of doing it right. So sure, we don't mind the sate issuing us a civil union license and then having the church do the Marriage. That's the way god wanted it. (And if my church decides to marry gays, I'll go to a different one.)

I swear to you, that's the gist of dozens of discussions I've had with my friends and neighbors in T party land.

So, do gays want to fight about the definition of Marriage and who has right to use the term, or would they rather work out a deal that allows them to marry?

And Jonathan, if There were no marriage license, only civil unions for all couples, how long do you think it would take for the problems with Civil Unions to disappear?

token,

Having sat in for the closing arguments of prop 8 I think that what you're saying makes sense...but only to a point.

one of the things they said at the trial is that people don't grow up wishing to have a "civil union." Children grow up wishing to be married (or some do). I don't know any kid who mentions "civil union" in their dreams about their futures.

Why does this matter?

Because having something be available to only one portion of the population is a form of state sanctioned discrimination. The privileges of civil union and marriage are not equal. But even if they were (a huge "if"), by having a separate word (separate but not equal) this alone gives tacit permission to discrimination and bigotry against gays.

The only way to remove this tacit permission to discriminate is for the state itself to not discriminate. To apply the law of the land without bias. The state does not have any compelling interest in segregating (even verbally) heterosexual from homosexual couples (the supposed "compelling" reason brought up in the trial was the natural ability to have children...but not all heterosexual couples have this ability, yet still they are permitted to "marry").

Weddings are important as celebrations not only among individuals, but of communities. To allow gay couples to marry gives them permission to be full participants in their communities. It allows them to be full on citizens.

This is why it matters. The civil union issue isn't just a semantic debate.

Funny that all of this matters to me, and yet I've never had an overwhelming desire to be married. To love, yes. To marry, perhaps. But I believe that those who wish to take that step shouldn't be discriminated against in any way by the state. State discrimination lends tacit permission to bigotry, and this is an important reason to end state-sponsored discrimination against gay couples.

Also, think about this. If, say California did away with "marriage" and replaced it with "Civil Union" across the board, and then more or less said to the other states, full faith and credit demands that you recognize these as having full status with what you term "marriage" - what's going to happen? California Civil Unions not recognized in other states? I think not. Gay Civil Unions in California have full status with marriage in all states? Yep

I meant to say of the prop 8 trial...

@Deloresflores

What you are saying is the whole point.

To those for whom a church wedding means something, the church still certifies the marriage and holds the wedding. The state's sanction never meant much to such folk anyway, so do you think they care if the despised state refers to it as a “Civil Union”(As long as no other group is being granted Marriage )

To those who are gay and religious ( and most of the gays I've known are ) presumably the church they attend has no problem with gays and the same thing applies.

To gays or straights who just want a simple service celebrating the commitment of their love? Nothing much changes from a civil service before a judge.

The states concern is the legalities of the union of the the legalities of two lives. Civil Union

The sanctity of marriage is in the love and commitment you vow to undertake in the presence of your people, your clan, your tribe, your community.

Civil Union is in the eyes ot the state, and deals with the legal status of the partnership
Marriage is always in the eyes of God, even in the absence of a state.

God's presence is the presence of your loved ones.
They are his eyes.
It has always been those eyes that sanctify a Marriage.

token...I agree with what you said about not being able to change the way people feel about the word "marriage."

The fact is that most people, gay and straight, want their marriage to be recognized by the state. You can argue that they SHOULDN'T feel this way, but the fact is that it would take a monumental effort to get the state completely out of the "marriage" business. A monumental effort. Seriously. For example, could the state ever take away the privilege that it already confers on married couples?

It would be very hard to revoke an already existing privilege especially for older married couples. I think there would be just as many objections as there are to gay marriage, in fact.

So, in lieu of that effort, we have what we have today. The state gives legal recognition to marriage between individuals.

Of course, if the "civil union" matter was one you could get people to feel excited about, that would be different. But for the most part, people seem not want to say, "I just got civilly unioned." They don't want to say, "this is my civil union partner." They seem to prefer the words marriage, husband, spouse, etc. and the community commitment/celebration this implies. This appears to be true regardless of sexual orientation.

Perhaps in the far future what you're talking about could take place...I'm not opposed to it if it applied to everyone equally. But in terms of the achievable and near future, we have to take away the idea that there is special state-conferred recognition of marriages like Limbaugh and Gingrich, and not equal recognition for married couples who are gay.

This is the simplest, most logical and fair way forward, as I see it, given where people are today and where their interests are...

just my .02 euro....

Deloresflores

No longer issuing "Marriage" licenses would not effect those already married in any way. What I am proposing is that you basically take your word processor and use the replace function on the current marriage law and just replace every occurrence of the word "Marriage" with "Civil Union" . I know that the young people in my family really couldn't care less if the license said "License to cohabit".

The Marriage is the ceremony and the commitment. If everyone got a "Civil Union" license, I cant really believe that the term "I'm getting Married!" would mean anything much different than it does today.

Only Gays would be able to say it and mean exactly the same thing straights did.

Interestingly my husband and I were just talking about this today. Racism against Mexicans (perhaps other Hispanics) and Blacks feels ( this is subjective based on political initiatives) as if it has hit a big high in this country ...perhaps it is the recession and the fact that we have a black President. Acceptance toward gays is on the upswing. I did post citing Gallop poll study...the study does not break out by race (but does by religion)

http://open.salon.com/blog/snarkychaser/2010/05/26/50_of_americans_perceive_moral_acceptability_for_gays

token,

there still is a problem with a two-tiered marriage v. civil union system. Separate, but not to most human brains, equal.

Marriage currently has more "status" than does "civil union" among people of all gender/orientations. This has been studied...

if it wasn't the case you would know many heterosexual couples who have a "civil union."

Do you know a lot of heterosexual couples like this? Do you know any?

I don't know a single hetero couple who has a "civil union" but I know a lot of married people. And the fact is heterosexuals could get a civil union too if they wanted to. They just don't want to, likely because to most human brains, it seems second tier and they want the first tier.

Also, the state, if it started only conferring status to "civil unions" instead of "marriages" would have to get permission from all the populace to make such a big change.

I think that the push to equality in marriage is easier than getting the whole country to agree to get the state out of the marriage business.

Maybe I'm wrong.

We can disagree though.

If everyone in the country were as open minded as your relatives it would be different. And ideally, your way may be better. I just think for practical reasons, the other way will be faster/more direct/more popular among couples who I know of either orientation.

You can politely disagree, D, or, you may consider pointing out the truth of the Church's History as marriage between a man and a woman goes to shed light on the obvious falsehood of their entire construct.

I'll give this a shot:

There is at least one respect in which gays have it worse than Blacks:

Blacks aren't typically rejected by their families for being Black.

Maybe two:

There aren't too many blithering idiots out there who think that Blacks are Black by choice. On the other hand, there are plenty of blithering idiots out there who think that gays are gay by choice.

This leads me to what I think may in part be going on, in addition to the religious issues:

Because Blacks are probably our largest and most conspicuous minority (leaving women out of this equation for the time being because they're technically the majority), they often find themselves stuck playing the Comparative Persecution Game. Any minority facing any kind of persecution is going to be compared to them. These comparisons are usually invalid because the nature of persecution can be very different, minority to minority. I don't mean the amount of persecution, I mean the nature of persecution. If you live in a slum and have limited educational and employment opportunities brought on by your minority status, you may feel less than sympathetic toward someone who grew up relatively wealthy, well-educated, sheltered and privileged and seems to be whining an awful lot and comparing themselves to you. You know, "What's one Matthew Shepard compared to generations of lynchings?" That's what you may hear because that's the point of comparison the speaker can relate to. They may not be able to relate to being rejected by their own families, being forbidden to marry, being forbidden to adopt children, being forbidden to visit a significant other in the hospital, etc. There's also a touch of defensiveness involved because the idea that someone who appears more privileged can claim rights to what has traditionally been their domain, that of the persecuted, may appear to devalue what they've been through and that's not something they can afford, because devaluing that status means reducing the urgency of addressing that set of grievances.

Sorry, I had trouble posting, so I left out another answer:

Concerning the issue that Token was on one side of:

The solution of taking states out of the marriage business altogether and putting them into the civil union business solves the problem completely. The only trouble is the likelihood of a large group of states opting for this solution is almost zero, making it a moot point. We'll have to make do with less theoretically perfect solutions that may actually be available.