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.

81 replies on “Letter from a Bisexual Plunged into “Invisible Darkness””

  1. There are polygamist 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  20. 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.

  22. 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.”

  23. “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.

  24. @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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. @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.

  33. 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.

  42. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. @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.

Comments are closed.