DarkLady, I believe michelle was addressing lisagirl with the quote.
Granting "special rights" to a group is generally less accurate that granting "protections" across an individual characteristic. A non-discrimination policy to protect TGs is born out of a necessity concerning those with non-conforming gender identity or gender expression, but it protects atypical and typical people alike. Granting the option of same-sex marriage isn't about giving rights to an exclusive group -- it is about the state treating relationships without regard to the sexes of the two individuals involved. It's a policy of the government not showing preference for a status, and protecting individuals regardless of their status. If there was a person targetting violence against Christians, White people, or men, I'd want that person charged with a hate crime just like a person targetting violence against Muslims/Agnostics/Buddhists, Black/Hispanic/etc, or women/androgynes. There's no special rights involved here -- it's just that the former group doesn't get targetted all that often, because the people who might otherwise be tempted to do so are generally more concerned with self-preservation at the moment.
As for the topic at hand, well, it's annoying (rationing of political capital), and I will leave it at that.
