I have something to admit: I have been addicted to following the Prop 8 trial in California, formally called Perry v. Schwarzenegger. For those of you out of the loop, after Proposition 8 passed in California, two same-sex couples and a team of lawyers (including conservative lawyer Ted Olsen who argued and won in Bush v. Gore) decided to take the state to court (hence the Schwarzenegger in Perry v. Schwarzenegger). They're arguing that Prop 8 is contrary to the U. S. Constitution, and very well, I might add.

You should really check it out the Courage Campaign's excellent Prop 8 Trial Tracker. The trial tracker reads like a transcript with some commentary thrown in. If you don't have time to read the entire transcript (and trust me, once you start, it's hard to stop), KQED also has solid coverage that is easier to take in doses that won't make you feel like you can't do anything else until you finish reading every single post. As of right now, all of the testimony has already happened, and they're waiting for the judge to review stuff before making closing arguments. There's at least a month before the closing arguments happen, so you have plenty of time to catch up on the testimony. It's fascinating to see how the lawyers are building the case. A lot of expert witnesses are professors, and reading along is like a series of lessons on the history of marriage, the history of queers, and sociology. I have learned so much from reading this trial, and I think it can't help but think it'll be a powerful read for anyone.

As much as I'm enjoying/can't stop following the Prop 8 trial, there's this one little thing that comes up for me over and over again as I read along: the invisibility of bisexuals. It isn't a surprise to me that there's no mention of bisexuals; I've noticed that we never seem to enter the picture in most discussions of same-sex marriage. Because bisexuals have access to heterosexual privilege (some of the time) and because of my own issues of feeling like an intruder in the queer world, I often don't mention the lack of bisexual representation. After all, if I marry a man, I will get pretty full access to heterosexual privilege, and many people will probably view me as straight unless I make a point of letting them know otherwise. But, I want to get married no matter what the gender of my lifetime partner turns out to be, and it's hard to feel like I don't have as real of a stake in this outcome--especially since I'm in my early 20s and who knows what will happen as life continues.

Over and over again in the trial they reference the "lesbian and gay communities," but (as far as I've noticed) there has yet to be a mention of bisexuals. I understand why. It's hard to be visible as a bisexual, and I imagine many bisexuals throughout history were considered members of the gay and lesbian communities if they were in same-sex relationships. I don't know that it would be helpful in the trial for them to talk about bisexuals: when you're building a case that one doesn't choose one's sexual orientation, talking about bisexuals really throws a wrench in the plan because we appear to be the flip-floppers of the sexuality world. I would argue that we don't choose our sexual orientation, either, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, I wonder how this trial and greater debate would be different if bisexuals were mentioned. Is it even possible? or relevant?

What do you guys think?