My response to a post by a conservative lady who had a bad encounter with a "militant dyke":

I was surfing blogosphere went I encountered this post from a self-proclaimed Canadian right-wing hottie:

• The Militant Dyke
  Interesting personal story.
  The other day a good friend of mine suggested I follow somebody on Twitter. Hmmm… well, I’m more apt to go for the suggestion of a friend than that of a machine. And besides, we had all been chatting up a storm together over on UStream (which I hate, by the way, lest anyone think I’ve sold out) earlier in the day.
  The chick in question was funny, witty, pithy as hell - in other words, my kind of gal.
  So I decided to look her up on Twitter and follow her as my friend suggested. We exchanged a few witty barbs to and fro, before the question of my politics came up:
  “So, guess you don’t believe in gay marriage.”
  Um… I didn’t quite know what to answer. No, I don’t, but not for religious reasons. I don’t believe in it because I don’t see a point to it. Every question that gay marriage raises can be answered with a contract. Be it a will, a living will, a partnership contract or even a civil union - marriage need never enter the conversation. But I didn’t say this.
  Instead I said that I didn’t see a point in discussing it, and ruining a good time. I would prefer to talk to this woman about pop culture and art (she’s a brilliant artist, and I had lots of work lined up for her)… Her response?
  “What’s the point of making small talk with ideological opponents?”
  She then went on to completely lose her shit over gay marriage, conservative Christians (the friend who introduced her to me is far more of a devout Christian than I’ll ever be - go figure), and all things outside her sad little sphere. She revealed herself to be that saddest and angriest of all lefty creatures: The militant dyke.
  Did I know she was gay going into it? Yes. Did I insult her? No. Did my very existence offend her? Yes.
  And so it goes. People may accuse us on the right of being polarized, insular, bigoted, whatever. But do those selfsame people ever look inwards at their own side of the spectrum?
  

She is of course entitled to her opinion and presumably, the encounter probably went as explained. So I naturally responded:

• 
  As a non-heterosexual American, I don’t have the option to marry the person I’ve been with for 14 years. We are fortunate to live in a state where we were granted first domestic partnership and then civil union status. Our legal relationship is not recognized by the federal government. We have paid almost $10,000 in fees for wills, powers of attorney, adoption fees and name changes which would have been simply, freely rendered were we able to marry. My partner cannot get my federal employee pension or health benefits, despite Obama’s much ballyhooed recent bestowment, because we unlike married people must pay extra taxes on them. So, I have my health benefits, pension etc and my partner has hers. We cannot get each other’s social security benefits either should one of us die. We must pay taxes jointly in our state and as single head of household federally (we each claim a kid).
  If religion has nothing to do with your opposition for “gay” marriage, where do you stand on barring religion from any contractual relationship, ie marriage? I’d be ok if marriage were replaced with civil unions for heterosexuals, leaving “marriage” solely as a religious ceremony like confirmation or bar-mitzvah.
  I mow my lawn, pay my taxes, volunteer in my kids’ school and my church, and am kind to kids, the elderly and animals. I am pretty boring. I am favor of a strong defense and of law and order. I am fiscally conservative. I believe we all have a duty to serve our country.
  I also think it is unwise to exclude qualified people from serving their country in the military.
  Finally, I think a society is more stable if most of its adults are legally committed in a long-term monogamous relationship with one other adult who they love and with whom they want to share a household. I think children living in such households will grow-up to be happy, productive members of society. The adults in such households will also be more likely to be employed, law-abiding and tax-paying.
  You may label me a “militant dyke” but that is my contribution to a “rational” discussion with you. I wish you no harm or ill-will nor any one else on the “right.” Barring religious reasons, there is no logical reason to deny me benefits and responsibilities available to lawfully wed heterosexual couples.
  Comment by suburban dyke — June 18, 2009 @ 9:46 am
  PS. I love pearls!
  Comment by suburban dyke — June 18, 2009 @ 9:49 am

Disclaimer: I ran spellcheck for my post here which was not available in the original post at girlontheright.com . Thus, there are some typographical errors in the original which have been corrected here.