After reading these articles, I was surprised to discover a movement against the pro same-sex marriage initiative that has taken root in the LGBTQ community. On one hand, it seems strange to me that marriage is denied to loving couples on the basis of gender or sexual orientation when marriages are repeatedly doled out to loveless, neglectful or even abusive couples. This fact undermines the argument that same-sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of the institution. Furthermore, this contradiction reveals the ways marriage is used as a tool to perpetuate a heterosexist norm.
However, I had perceived this problem to lie in the exclusivity imposed on marriage by outside forces, rather than a hierarchy inherent in the institution itself. If, for example, we waved the heterosexual requirement for marriage, wouldn’t we remove some of the exclusivity? In this sense, I have to disagree with
And yet, even after we make marriage inclusive of gay and lesbian couples, it still allows an insider /outsider dichotomy to exist. As Ettelbrick points out, because marriage, a civic institution based on one’s personal life, confers rights and privileges it will always “[create] a two-tier system that allows the state to regulate relationships.” Even if same-sex marriage became accepted, there would still be those whose relationships are not recognized by the state. For example, polygamous relationships or non-romantic partnerships are essentially denied the rights conferred by marriage. Even heterosexual individuals in monogamous relationships who, for whatever reason, have decided not to get married are not protected.
I think these oversights fail to take into account the inevitable co-dependence any long-term relationship likely creates and thus puts the non-protected individuals at risk. Whether straight, gay, romantically linked, monogamous or simply lifelong friends, the strength and importance of these partnerships should be acknowledged, especially in times of crisis such as the death or injury of an individual or in regards to life-changing decisions such as the adoption of a child. Our society is structured around the family unit, and as such I think undermining the relationships that make up the fabric of families is detrimental to the stability of society itself. The problem, of course, is that until recently the uncontested definition of family typically included a wife and a husband.
Theoretically, extending the rights given by marriage to other domestic partnerships would allow more individuals to enjoy greater financial and familial stability. Of course, some of those rights and protections are privilege-based, and therefore would do little to help already disadvantaged groups. As
Returning to the issue of same-sex marriage, I can see how marriage as an institution is problematic politically because it will always perpetuate a hierarchy between the married and the unmarried. Theoretically, decoupling benefits from marriage (as it is defined as a heterosexual, monogamous romantic union) may help alleviate this disparity. However, as a personal statement of love and devotion, I think romantic marriage should be available to those who want to celebrate a relationship and declare their intentions in front of friends and family. If marriage can escape politicization by being decoupled from the benefits system, its meaning will be distilled in such a way that the sanctity of marriage—a term often used as a tool in a heterosexist agenda—can be preserved. Furthermore, by extending marriage benefits to other kinds of domestic relationships, the financial and personal privileges associated with them will provide more people with more stable partnerships.
As has been the case with many of the articles we have read lately, I view these readings as a matter of choice. First of all, the fact that same-sex couples were granted the right to civil unions may have sufficed in the past--but we have come a a long way and "separate and unequal" is not acceptable. Love and companionship are personal feelings, and no body has the right to tell a couple that they can or cannot do something legally if that is what they want to do. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most important and overlooked aspects of making same-sex marriage legal is the children involved. Despite George W. Bush's concern for the "welfare of children and stability of society," marriage would allow gay and lesbian couples certain safety nets that would help protect their children. And, as Naples pointed out, gay and lesbian couples will continue to have children, despite what society may do to stop them.
Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in my opinion, lessen the importance of marriage in any way. In fact, knowing that two women love each other enough to enter into a legal contract only strenghtens my opinion of lesbian couples and their devotion to one another. These couples, unlike traditional male-female couples, have many challenges to face. Especially when considering children and who will carry the child, lesbian couples deal with enormous amounts of stress. Nonetheless, if they love one another and legally want to be married despite society's uprisings, who are we to stop them?
Paula Ettelbrick's article makes sense to me in that she doesn't want to "mainstream her life and voice." I'm not sure I agree with her...but as a straight female I may not be able to relate. In my opinion, gay marriage simply means equal right and equal choice for everyone. Nobody is saying that gay couples HAVE to get married if it becomes completely legal--it is simply about the choice and the option to do so...and I think Ettelbrick is only thinking in terms of herself and her own personal views of marriage.
In terms of all the protections and rights granted to married couples, what is the point in keeping these from same sex couples? Just because a couple is male-female does not mean that it is any more functional loving (as we saw last week when we talked about violence against women). Who are we to define marriage, and who are we to grant certain rights?
Like Cait, I was surprised to read about the movement within the LGBTQ community that does not see same-sex marriage as an appropriate goal. Understanding the many benefits that come with being married (hospital visitation and health insurance, Social Security benefits, family leave, retirement savings, etc.), I assumed that most people, regardless of their accepting the state or federal government’s ability to regulate their relationship, would want access to these benefits. I did not, and generally still do not, view granting same-sex couples the ability to marry, which would still be a personal choice, as “lead[ing] inevitably to further assimilation into a heterosexist regime” (Naples 680) or in the words of Paula Ettlebrick, “constrain lesbians and gay men, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation” (Ettelbrick 306)).
ReplyDeleteI do agree that marriage should not be seen as a path to liberation or as the ultimate goal of the LGBTQ community. As Ettelbrick explains, “obtaining a right does not always result in justice” and “justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships” (306). Ettelbrick’s argument here seems to parallel the argument of feminist maximizers, who assert that there are fundamental differences between the sexes but that those differences do not preclude women from reaching a state of equality. Ettelbrick’s goal for the gay and lesbian community is thus acceptance, or even embracing, of their differences, rather than the emphasis that they, as individuals and in relationships, are absolutely no different. She writes, “the moment we argue, as some among us insist on doing, that we should be treated as equals because we are really just like married couples and hold the same values to be true, we undermine the very purpose of our movement and begin the dangerous process of silencing our different voices.” I am not sure I agree completely with her statement, as there is value to recognizing commonalities between people. Still, Ettelbrick is right in that gaining the right to marry does not mean equality will have been reached. The goals o the liberation movement must be more inclusive.
Another interesting point I had not considered was that same sex-marriage could would undermine different relationships and create an “us-them” dichotomy between individuals who are and are not married (regardless of sexual orientation). Ettelbrick rights, “we would be perpetuating the elevation of married relationships and of “couples” in general, and further eclipsing other relationships of choice” (307). This argument seems more directed at the nature of marriage in general, rather than specifically same-sex marriage. Ettelbrick seems to suggest that the benefits of marriage should be afforded to all individuals rather than according to such a strict classification system. Furthermore, she seems to argue that we should not value the institution of marriage as highly as we do.
While some of her points may be value, like Colleen, I see marriage as a choice. As such, it should be granted to all individuals and one of many goals of gay and lesbian liberation. People should feel free to share their commitment with their surrounding communities and on a more practical level, obtain the benefits that come along with saying “I do.” The institution of marriage may be problematic and divisive, but it is one that will likely continue to exist regardless of such issues.
If two people love each other, and they want to declare their love legally, no one should have the power to stop them. People should be able to love whomever they want, and no one should be denied the choice of whether or not to get married. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in today, this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is, without a doubt, an institution. However, I do believe that, while it has its faults, it is also something very sacred. Paula Ettelbrick, author of “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation," writes, "Certainly, marriage is an institution. It is one of the most venerable, impenetrable institutions in modern society. Marriage provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships in our society, and gives those who marry an outsider status of the most powerful kind.” Why is it that the institution of marriage, which should be based on whether or not two people truly love each other, often chooses to close the doors of the institution to same sex couples? So the institution may have to change a little bit, big deal. In my opinion, it would be a good change.
Caitlin writes in her blog, “Whether straight, gay, romantically linked, monogamous or simply lifelong friends, the strength and importance of these partnerships should be acknowledged, especially in times of crisis such as death or injury of an individual or in regards to life-changing decisions such as the adoption of a child.” Marriage gives couples numerous rights, rights that cannot be obtained if the couple are not legally married. Marriage should be offered to all; no one should have the right to deny a couple, any type of couple, the right to get married.
I think Anna makes a very valid point. Too often people think that just because a homosexual couple loves each other, they can live the same life as a heterosexual couple just without the label of marriage. However, there are so many rights that come with marriage and without legally marrying a homosexual couple has none of these rights. Marriage, regardless of its traditional origins, is the only way to give homosexual couples equality. It seems to me like as society slowly begins to be more accepting of the times, the law doesn't follow. What seems to be socially accepted nowadays, isn't deemed acceptable in the eyes of the law. Now, I'm not saying that everyone accepts homosexual relationships like they should, what I'm saying is that the law needs to catch up. Its 2010. Get with it.
ReplyDelete