AB: Obviously ENDA is a perfect example of this: the use of grassroots activism to change elected officials' minds. As you said, one of the big divisions in Washington right now – even within groups – is the tension between grassroots and institutionalized activism. That can throw off normal citizens and political insiders. People don't know who to listen to – do they listen to Mary, Joe and Bob outside the state house in Michigan or to the people in the corridors in Washington?

MF: They make a judgment of who to listen to and that judgment is based on self-interest nine times out of ten.

LH: Andrew, to get right to the heart of what you're asking, politicians have been trained to listen to only a handful or people. Now they're learning that they can't rely on those people. They have to look much farther and cast a wider net to decide what they're going to do about LGBT issues. They're learning that because of the internet, because of increased communications, there is no longer a sole voice on Capitol Hill for LGBT people.

MF: I think that's right. The internet and so many other new ways of communication have really profoundly changed the way communities mobilize and the way officials listen to communities. The interesting thing about our community – except on the margins – is that there's no real disagreement about our priorities, either federally or state. We've just been so stuck because of who's controlled Congress and who's controlled the White House. Meanwhile, the world has marched ahead – popular opinion and culture has skyrocketed ahead. It's so ironic that 34-years after our comprehensive civil rights bill was introduced that we're still struggling to pass just one tiny piece of that comprehensive bill: ENDA. There's a disconnect between what's happening on Capitol Hill and what's happening in popular culture – and not just LGBT issues. It runs the gamut.

LH: I think sometimes we confuse the two things that we want: acceptance in public opinion and equality under the law. It seems like if you only talk in terms of equality under the law, then you take away some of the power that our opponents have in talking about religion and morality. They use that to confuse people and muddle the message. Why don't we speak in terms of being pro-active? "Discrimination exists in federal laws and we need to end that discrimination. Why don't you get on board to end discrimination?"

MF: I've never understood why Democrats in particular haven't done exactly that. Given the overwhelming public support for things like non-discrimination legislation and hate crimes – they're very basic foundations of life, not the walls or roof of equality – but I've never understood why they haven't put our opponents on the defensive. That speaks to this myth in politics that you don't want to talk about gay people because it's going be bad for you. Support for basic protections has never hurt anyone in the polls. It's the perfect wedge issue to go in the opposite direction. We should say to these people, "Oh, you support discrimination? You support violence?" The challenge within our community is, frankly, a resource issue. Public education work and $100 million – which is not a lot of money in the real world – could profoundly change public political opinion in a very short period of time.

AB: Matt, you said something a minute ago – you said that popular culture has outgrown the political reality. I may disagree with you a bit. A lot of the popular culture images of gay people that are disseminated are not necessarily the most progressive or helpful.

MF: I couldn't agree with you more. What I'm saying is that if you poll the American people now and ask, "Is there a federal law that protects gay people from discrimination?" The majority of them say, "Yes, there is." A fifth of Americans believe that we can get married. We have these images – I don't believe they're helpful or they certainly don't represent who we actually are, such as Will & Grace – but nonetheless they're out there and they normalized us in a very real way, particularly among the younger generation.

AB: Right.

MF: I want to say something else. When I said that we have virtual agreement in the movement about our agenda, I meant our short-term agenda. There's no disagreement in the movement that we need hate crimes protections, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we want some form of relationship recognition – I think where there is a divergence and there is not a consensus is the long-term vision for our movement. Part of this is trying to figure out… We are part of something bigger than just trying to get the technical equality under the law. That's a prerequisite, but we can't pretend that's the end. That's really a more just society.