First, as a lesbian, it saddens me deeply whenever I hear about LGBT people using the very laws that discriminate against us against one another, especially if it involves a custody battle. They should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

Second, to the previous poster, we have an extra responsibility to protect ourselves by moving to another state? Excuse me, but that's ridiculous on its face. Moving isn't always an option, both financially and emotionally. Would you leave your family, friends or job just to move because you couldn't adopt a child jointly? Just in case you break up some day?

A personal example: I'm married, my partner and I live in a pretty gay-friendly state right now that is set to be one of the next states to have marriage or civil unions. BUT we are planning on moving away to Pennsylvania to be closer to my family because we want to start a family soon, we want to raise our kids with a lot of family around. Pennsylvania at this moment in time has some of the most liberal adoption laws in the country, HOWEVER, the PA legislature is pushing a very broadly-worded anti-gay marriage amendment that *could* undermine all of that. What are we supposed to do? All of the laws are in flux right now, they're unpredictable. We really don't know what is going to happen, but we are willing to move anyways because it is worth the potential discriminiation.

Why is it on us to go somewhere else? If we follow that thinking to its logical conclusion then every single gay couple who lives in the US should either move to Massachusetts or Canada. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

For the record, there are over 1000 rights automatically conferred by legal marriage, it goes WAY beyond not being able to file taxes together. Some of the rights by themselves don't have much of an impact, but collectively they pack a very large punch. (http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html)

Unfortunately the fact that my partner and I are not legally married impacts us in more ways than I like to think about-- taxes, social security, hospital visitation, inheritence, property ownership, insurance coverage and rates, immigration laws, legal rights such as marital priviledge, adoption laws, and overall financial and legal security. We are, under the law, 2 single women who are legal strangers and there is no amount of paperwork that can change that fact. When we have children we consider ourselves "lucky" that our children will legally be connected to both of us through second-parent adoption, however, as parents we will still be "strangers" to one another.

Yes, we have all the legal documents possible (durable power of attorney, health care directives) but that still doesn't provide the legal protection that marriage does, because in certain situations people (such as hospital staff) can dismiss those documents and tell you "sorry, but you're not family." (This has happened to us. We now have an agreement that if one of us is ever hosptialized that we are to lie and say we are sisters. Sick, eh?) We also have to worry about my partner's estranged family, who could legally challenge any arrangements we make if something were to happen to her-- unfortunately the cases where a widowed partner is sued and lost their house to their deceased partner's family are not myths.

I personally don't care if it is called marriage or civil unions or domestic parntnerships EXCEPT that means we'd only be protected while we're in that state-- all we'd have to do is cross a state border and suddenly we're legal strangers again.

Who the hell is the "bitch" interviewing Zeisler? I might expect an interviewer that dismissive, condescending and combative in a conservative rag but the NYT? Weirdest interview ever.

We have to be as ruthless as they are

According to everything you just wrote-- they kill 3000 of our people and we turn around and kill tens of thousands-- means we are as ruthless, of not more so.

I think the whole point is that if we stay on our current track we are creating more terrorists, we are not making ourselves safer. This doesn't mean giving into their demands but it does mean considering that our actions might have unintended consequences, namely the creation of more al Qaeda footsoldiers.

I'd like to see the day when my family isn't used as a political punching bag or a talking point every election cycle. It's nice to think that that day is coming. I've long thought-- and hoped-- that glbt rights won't have the staying power of abortion, that we won't still having these same arguments 30+ years from now. I think there are some early signs that this is true, that people can't maintain the same kind of outrage and may eventually see that saying marriage is a threat to marriage is just silly.

By the way, I have to add that the NRA isn't just about guns, it's about right-wing gunnuts with guns. The organization doesn't just talk about guns, they're a right-wing organization that talks about defending "family values." (Implied is that they need their guns to do so.) Wayne LaPierre is a crazier than a bedbug. The day the Dems start trying to appeal to the real NRA wing-nuts, not just gunowners and hunters, is the day that I move to Canada.