Evan Urquhart

Little problem. Sandy Stier had been previously married to a man. And if Sandy could get married to a man, then how was this law discriminatory? She can get MARRIED, just not to another woman! She's making a CHOICE. CHOICES aren't protected in US law.

Well, the lawyers had to show that Sandy didn't have a choice. That her queerness was immutable. I don't have the transcripts in front of me, so I'll summarize.

David Boies: Sandy, you were married to a man. Sandy Stier: Yes David Boies: Did you love him? Sandy Steir: I didn't love anyone until I met Kris Perry. David Boies: INTERESTING!!!!!! **turns meaningfully to the judge** Innnnnnteresting. **strokes chin** interesting.

Now let me be clear, I am NOT saying that Sandy Stier DID love her husband. Or that she's bi or anything. I don't know Sandy. What I AM saying is that the lawyers in Prop 8 HAD TO show that Sandy was never ever ever ever straight and didn't love a SINGLE PERSON before Kris.

And that's just NOT TRUE for many of us in the queer community. Some of us fell in love with someone of a similar gender after YEARS of love with someone of a different gender Some of us realized our own gender identity after DECADES of life in another gender identity.

AND Some of us went back to loving people of a different gender after some time with a partner of a similar gender. Are we traitors? And some of us moved on in our gender transition. Moved on towards a gender more aligned with our gender assigned at birth. Are we traitors?

And so where does that leave us? Where are we in the conversation around immutability?

The answer is unclear, because, as I said up top, the greater Left and even the LGBT advocacy establishment lack a clear narrative around fluidity. And the Right knows this. And capitalizes on it. And here we have Milo, crawling back on to ANY STAGE he can find.