Hi Pauline, thanks for opening up this discussion. I'm hoping to find that copy of Amerasian in my school library soon . I am an API (ethnic Chinese) queer studying in the U.S., and I am opposed to the current push for same-sex marriage, both on ethical and strategic grounds. I won't go too much into my reasons to start off with, but will instead respond to some points you raised in your post. Hopefully my views will come across.

some argue (falsely, I think) that the marriage equality movement is composed solely or primarily of those who have embraced an assimilationist discourse of heteronormative values

The assimilationist nature of the push for marriage is not the problem (well, not the only problem, anyway). What is problematic is marriage's implications for what kinds of relationships deserve protection and valuing (or maybe that's what the condemnation of "assimilationist" means. I don't know. I've realized recently that buzzwords like "assimilationist" seem to mean different things to different people and are more divisive than helpful).

Instead of setting up the "radical" queers in opposition to the "assimilationist" gays, why not look at it this way - those of us who oppose marriage see it as inherently normative, and at once too limited and too broad in its granting of social status and economic and political rights.

It's too narrow because it only includes couples in relationships presumptively involving sex (with each other). It thus excludes other relationships of mutual care, as discussed in the beyond same-sex marriage statement (a pretty good read).

It's too broad because it includes some couples who neither deserve nor need protections (1 day marriages, 5 minute weddings).

Crucially, only marriage would provide the foreign partner of a US citizen the right to citizenship, because citizenship is, of course, a federal matter and one which no state court or legislature can confer upon an individual.

This is another problem with some pro-marriage arguments. The attitude seems to be "we must have marriage or we'll have nothing". On the contrary, many states have passed laws extending certain protections and rights previously restricted to married couples only to include not just same-sex couples, but other individuals, relationships and families, based on the reliance and trust those relationships entail.

I'm not just talking about domestic partner and civil unions laws. An example is second parent adoption laws - great for same-sex couples wanting to raise a child, but also good for two friends who want to raise a child together, or a sibling wanting to help raise her nieces and nephews (children of her sister, a single parent), or a heterosexual couple who aren't married.

There have been repeated unsuccessful attempts to pass a permanent-partner immigration act, that would extend immigration benefits to same-sex partners of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. Relatively little attention has been paid to this bill, however (I also think that it doesn't go quite far enough, but, oh well...)

The smug queer theorists (notably, including the clueless Judith Butler) and activists who from their positions of privilege (including, in most cases, white skin privilege as well as class privilege) deride the struggle for marriage equality ignore the international human rights context and in so doing show that they are willing to condemn thousands (perhaps even hundreds of thousands) of LGBT people (including LGBT people of color) not only to separation from their partners here in the United States but also to persecution and even death in their countries of origin.

I am more than sympathetic to the problems facing queer people from countries where our gender identity and sexuality are not just disapproved of, but feared and persecuted with the cooperation or active participation of the state. In fact, I am personally invested in this issue, being from such a country myself.

However, it is beyond incredible to blame queer theorists like Judith Butler for this persecution.

Who instituted harsh refugee law policies that make it harder for those fleeing persecution to gain asylum? Who sentences people to death, beatings and persistent social ostracism for being gay, lesbian, bi or trans? It's not Judith Butler!

To say that queer theorists are "willing to condemn" LGBT people to horrible, unjust fates is inflammatory and unfair.