1. You believe that homosexuals should be allowed to express their sexuality within marriage, right?

10. So you really don’t support equal rights for bisexuals?

LaRue makes many errors.  The first is ignoring the fact that many bisexuals are, in fact, legally married to the person of their choice already, and those people are opposite-sex.  This can be attested to by compilations of first-person bisexual essays such as Bi Any Other Name, the existence of online and real-world support groups, and countless advice columns.  Some of us have married, civilly united with, or otherwise made commitments to members of the same sex.  I'm one of them.  All we want are equal rights and equal treatment, and to have the legal multiple personality disorder that is thrust on bisexuals by current marriage law removed.

LaRue takes the all-too-common stereotype of bisexuals as promiscuous and runs far with it.  She conflates bisexuality with polyamory, or relationships that involve more than two.  Bisexuals are attracted to members of both genders in varying degrees.  On a personal note, I'm 50/50 and find that people like me with equal degrees of attraction to both genders are comparatively rare even in groups of bisexuals.  Even for us, attraction doesn't necessarily translate to behavior.  Like heterosexuals, it usually begins and ends with a long look.  I've found that on racing forums, many married heterosexual women have a crush on short, dark-haired, aggressive race car driver Tony Stewart.  Their husbands may be red-haired or blond or tall or extremely cautious drivers, but their crush doesn't indicate that they need or want two spouses.  When I, a woman married to a woman, have a crush on Tony Stewart, I am not expressing a need or desire for two spouses, either.

LaRue hopes not only to literally demonize a segment of the LGBT community, but to sow divisions.  Her series of questions for Signorile ends, "So you really don't support equal rights for bisexuals?", as if he's a closet biphobe.  Her arguments are  intended to make all-the-way-gay people look ridiculous and hypocritical when asking for equality and tolerance.  They are also intended to discredit bisexuals both to gays whom we'd like to work with and straights who know little to nothing about us.  How can we make a good argument for SSM to someone who believes we "really" want something alien, complex, and scary?

Which brings me to LaRue's main error, and intent.  Her main use for bisexuals is to further the same old slippery slope argument.

When society and its courts think “fairness” and “tolerance” trump morality, the laws of God and what’s best for children, what will stop polygamists from marrying? Why limit it to three, “loving and committed” people? Why not two adults and a consenting minor? Why not a dozen polyamorists?....

Who doesn’t know that you have to hide the playbook if your goal is to negate marriage by taking a duped and desensitized society down the slope slide by slide?

This isn't the first time bisexual lives have been appropriated as arguments against gay (and bisexual) rights by Christian Nationalists.   Nancy Heche, mother of Anne, has parlayed her daughter's romantic history into a career as an anti-gay speaker and author.  (Anne herself vocally opposes this.)  Anne was held up as "proof" that "lesbians" can and should change when she married; so was bisexually-identified singer Sinead O'Connor during her brief marriage to her second husband.  The Traditional Values Coalition used reports of openly bisexual teenage girls to argue that gay advocacy is warping teenagers' sexuality.  

Bisexuals have difficulty finding acceptance when we come out.  We experience flack from conservatives, liberals, straights, and gays.  However, when it comes to the culture wars, we know where our real allies are.  I expect to change no minds by writing this.  My intent is simply to serve notice that I refuse to let Christian Nationalists draft me, or a straw woman with my name on it, to their side.