I wish every TV station around the world would show this video everyday for a year. A big, big thank you!

I haven't gotten an official invite yet, but my bestfriend and his partner should be tying the knot sometime soon in LA.

You're totally invited, there's sure to be plenty of cute boys to choose from.

And I promise, there will be no chicken dance.

I was really moved by what you said. This is a historic event.  Thanks to everyone out there that made it possible for us as a community to see this day.

 Also, thanks Japhy for your words. Keep up the great work. 

On a shallow note. You should wear suits more often. It really brings out your eyes ;)

First things first: a while back in your q&a section you answered my question with some rather kind, incisive, and thoughtful comments, which (as I requested) offered me some inspiration on a day when the Michigan Supreme Court dealt our movement a proverbial kick in the groin. I had some minor bones to pick with your comments, but they seem less relevant after a few weeks have passed and this recent decision (and the comments interface ate them), but it definitely behooves me to say "thanks."

And in addition, I also want to thank you for your kind comments about those of us who work in the LGBT rights (and specifically the marriage equality) field. On that point, though, please keep in mind that not everyone at these organizations that you mention -- not even all every lawyer working on marrige equality -- is gay or lesbian; many are not, and they're equal allies in this, capable of expressing with breathtaking eloquence the true importance of equal dignity for Americans of all sexual orientations/gender identities. And as much as all of these organizations could use additional funding -- I like your suggestion about wedding gifts -- I think it's a disservice to the large number of Americans (LGBT, HIV+, or not) who already do make this work possible with their contributions to imply that gay communities or Americans as a whole are somehow only fixating on Larry Craig, and aren't paying attention to the rights of LGBT people.

There are times when I don't think that we as a community want our rights badly enough -- that we're not willing to sacrifice enough to force people to deny us our humanity in the way that others have done before us (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) -- but there's no denying that my salary and the salaries of so many others are funded through these contributions, so let's not belittle that.

---

All of that said, I'd like to focus my substantive comments on your interpretation of your colleague's bitterness. I think you're oversimplifying and conflating ideas, inasmuch as you're insisting that we are now and have always been equal, and ought not to view ourselves as "other."

You, Japhy Grant, may not see yourself as a second-class citizen, and you (as a resident of California) certainly have less of a reason to after last week's decision. But like it or not, the law does treat you differently. There are basic civil rights you lack, most notably at the Federal level. You can try to "choose to act as [a] full citizen[]" but if you join the military and declare your sexual orientation, you will likely be kicked out, and if you get married, you won't get federal benefits. That's reality.

Now, you're right that it's important for one not to internalize that differential treatment to the point where (a) one thinks of oneself as somehow "less than" others (b) one accedes to that differential treatment. And I think that's the point you were trying to make. But I think you need to leave room for us to recognize -- and even sometimes hystericize -- that differential treatment, and create a moral outrage around it, and a willingness to show others the real harm that this differential treatment works on our communities. Otherwise, how will we eliminate this differential treatment?

Recognizing our differential treatment is not seeking "revenge, vengeance, and validation." It's not "letting others frame the debate." It's not "compromis[ing] our dignity." It's recognizing the reality of the existing state of affairs, so that we can reocgnize that it requires change, and change it. While I appreciate the symbolism of saying, "we always had equality, they just recognized it," that's really operating on the level of the symbolic and not on the level of reality. Though legal decisions are often couched in such theoretical fictions (Lawrence v. Texas, for example, saying in 2003 Bowers was wrong in 1986, when -- wrong or right -- it was what it was for 17 years) there's some good scholarship on how they are just that -- fictions.

So I think your friend would be justified in saying not that we are equal, but to say that we deserve to be equal, and being a bit down from time to time about the fact that we are not yet equal and that it may be a very long time before we are equal. Hell, I work in this field, and I get down about this from time to time.

In the meantime, thanks for your stirring commentary.

---

Minor fact checking:

--"separate but equal" never applied to interracial marriages. There was no separate institution for interracial marriages. "Separate but equal" applied previously to separate bathrooms, schools, water fountains, etc. for "colored" people, and applies currently to the statutory schemes known variously as civil unions or domestic partnerhsips. You are correct, though, that a major basis for this opinion was Perez v. Sharp, the 1948 Cal. Supreme Court decision overruling interracial marriages.

--Slaves were 3/5 of a person, not 2/3.

Hey Japhy, loved your latest video column. At the end I was just waiting to see an image of you with an American flag waving behind you with a voiceover saying, "I'm Japhy Grant and I approve this message."

I do have two political related questions to ask. The first concerns the court decision in California. Why do you think Gov. Schwarzenegger (I hope I spelled that right) isn't coming out against the court's decision? Is he alright with same-sex marriage in the state so long as people can't trace it back to him as the one who actually put the law into effect? I just find it ironic that he supports the decision after vetoing a same-sex marriage bill that was passed by the elected legislature of the state of California, twice!!!

Also, I have to ask what do you think of Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the former chairman of the Democratic party. I gotta admit I didn't have a lot of respect for him as party chairman since under his tenure the Dems lost control of the Senate and had further losses in the House in 2002 as well as 2004. But watching him speaking for the Hillary Clinton campaign just makes me more disgusted with him. My perception of him is this guy hasn't run anything that's won in so long he will say anything to change that. He also just happens to be backing a candidate with the same stubborness about winning, although she hasn't lost her elections as McAuliffe has. What's your perception?

If you'll excuse me, I gotta get back to listening to Imus!

Is their a wedding registry where straight couples can request a donation in their name to organizations that work for gay marriage?

.

Great column. It addressed the many varying opinions that we have within our community.

One thing though... I thought the music was really annoying, especially since it kept repeating throughout without change. You could have removed it at the more serious portions and put it back on when you get to a lighter note.

P.S. On a shallow note... suits are good. Makes you look more news-ish.