The institution of marriage for gays and lesbians has been met with both overwhelming support and massive opposition in recent years as state legislation have begun to make this possibility a reality. The legal system is tedious in many aspects, and the differences between civil unions and marriage itself can be a bit complicated. Whatever any proponent or opponent has to say about this heated debate, we live in a free democratic society that paradoxically is blocking fundamental freedoms for a growing community in our society. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign provide the basic information that all people who have privilege to make change in this country need access to in order to be educated on the matter. The difference between civil unions and marriage was foreign to me before reading a fact list. Marriage provides an avenue for gay and lesbian couples to conduct their lives like a heterosexual couple. The economic benefits of marriage are astounding, and to think many of these things can't be shared by life partners who share the same love that a heterosexual married couple does is troubling. The recent legislation is a positive first step to enact these changes into law. However, just because civil unions are permitted in a state like Vermont, not all gay and lesbian couples can realistically live in Vermont. This is a simple reality and may seem repetitive, but after reading the economic hardship that gay and lesbian couples have to go through because they are not recognized in the same manner as heterosexual couples, it is outrageous to think of a couple from a place like New Mexico traveling to Vermont because their basic rights are denied in their home state. Aside from the basic denial of human rights and rights as a U.S. citizen, these people are law abiding citizens who contribute to the well-being of our nation, who pay their taxes, who are in love, and who want to live their everyday lives like normal people. I admired Naples article about "Queer Parenting" because she brings a very realistic twist to the current situation in our country. In this day and age, the amount of same-sex couples is on the rise and becoming "more normal" by our societal standards. I agree, there is no doubt that a heterosexist regime exists within the institution of marriage, but through all of this active legislation, lawmakers and activists are working to deconstruct that regime and allow same-sex couples to share in the long coveted institution of marriage. Patriarchy will continue to exist in society whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed. Naples is extremely practical in that organizers of this movement need to work to achieve the political goals instead of attacking the institution itself. Our society is full of institutions, and sometimes in order to enact change, people must work within those institutions to help re-shape thought and eventually alter an institution to be contemporary to the general societal norms of the times. The uproar that the same-sex marriage debate has created shows the pride within the gay community to be recognized in this manner. With scientific and technological advances, as well as progression in society, many same sex couples have the privilege of having children. Why should they be denied the rights that a heterosexual couple with children has? This is intentionally marginalizing a sector of society.
Naples discusses her partner's pregnancy and the classes they attend and experiences they have together during these nine months. Naples points out that her partner frequently found herself talking to other pregnant women, lesbians or not, and coexisting without pointing out any fundamental differences - mainly because, in reality, there are no fundamental differences between a pregnant lesbian woman and a pregnant heterosexual woman. It is a societal construction and the institution of marriage that has led us to believe these things. But working for change within the institution can truly change how society thinks. Heterosexual privilege must be challenged, but it cannot be completely denied. Gays and lesbians must find an equal playing field to hold constructive debates concerning these privileges.
Ettelbrick's article truly went against the constructive progressivism that Naples was discussing. She is looking to the institution of marriage as something that is barbaric - when this institution has a huge bearing on the shape of our society. I think she attacks the institution for the wrong reasons, and does not present any answers as to what rights gays and lesbians should be granted if it is not marriage. The economic benefits as well as the personal satisfaction through a union that is recognized legally and by society is what the gay and lesbian communities have been working towards as a first step into coexistence. Ettelbrick is denying any coexistence and acting as if she needs a red carpet rolled out for any lesbian or gay relationship. Therefore, the privilege is simply shifted rather than eliminated. Marriage will not make gays and lesbians invisible, but rather accepted. Relationships and family diversity will only be encouraged by allowing gays and lesbians to marry and live the married life as a heterosexual couple does. I agree with her that rights and justice really do go hand in hand. However, how is marriage not accepting gay and lesbian couples into society?? I think this is a huge step for our nation, and for human rights in general.
Marriage would make a gay or lesbian more "mainstream." However, with the economic rights as well as other legal perks to being married, isn't this what a gay or lesbian couple could hope for? By legalizing gay and lesbian marriage, this does not force gay and lesbian couples to be the same as heterosexual couples - but rather, allows them to enjoy the same rights if they so desire. It is equalizing our conception of human beings, of equal rights for all, a concept that this nation was founded upon. Power relations would both promote different kinds of relationships as well as legal perks. I disagree that marriage for gays and lesbians would lead to sexual oppression. I look to it as an avenue of acceptance and a huge step for these two communities. Granted, the institution of marriage is heterosexually dominated, but these things cannot change overnight. This first step is monumental into moving forward. Ettelbrick condemns the institution of marriage itself, it seems to the point where she even is condemning it for heterosexual couples.
Ettelbrick ends her chapter talking about a path to recognition for the gay and lesbian communities, and I think this directly corresponds with the message that Naples hopes to convey in her article. Marriage provides different rights and privileges that many gay and lesbian couples have the right to enjoy. If a gay or lesbian couple does not wish to marry, even if it becomes universally legalized, that is their choice. However, these couples should have the right to participate in the institution of marriage and in society as they wish - as equal human beings.
I think Katie provides a wealth of valuable points in her blog, however I think it is beneficial to touch upon what Ettelbrick refers to as, "assimilation into the mainstream" (Ettelbrick 306). There is no doubt that Ettelbrick has a strong opinion about just how marriage rights will affect the gay and lesbian community and it is first important to point out that this was written in 1989. The social landscape and wider social acceptability of homosexual relationships that exists today presents a much different situation for those homosexual couples that are present in society today. I think Ettelbrick make a quite pertinent point when she highlights that, contemporarily, marriage will not have the liberating effect that many assume but rather force gay and lesbian couples into a narrower path of constraints into the mainstream. What instead needs to happen is to bring the qualities of the LGBTQ community to the wider public to push forward knowledge about this huge demographic of people in order to transform "the very fabric of society" (306). I personally feel that this tactic is just as important today as it was in 1989. For even though LGBTQ individuals, notable gays and lesbians, possess more rights than in 1989 spreading knowledge in order for them to possess their own position among others in society is crucial. When Ettelbrick argues that through assimilation what is actually being achieved is the labeling of gay and lesbian couples as something equal to heterosexual couples, which in turn hinders the recognition of this demographic as a unique portion of society, I think she nails this idea on the head. Too often, marriage rights have been seen as the be all and end all to acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual culture in our country. However, Ettelbrick's contrary notion is both applicable in 1989 as well as today, where her ideas flip the common views on their head and present a less benevolent view of gay marriage. I feel that even those adamant supporters of gay marriage can see the harm of acquisition of rights merely for the acquisition of rights that fail to substantially progress the lesbian and gay community and in fact may diminish their role as a unique group in society.
ReplyDeleteI also found Ettelbrick’s article interesting as I had not formerly considered legalizing gay marriage as a step backwards. Although this Ettelbrick wrote her piece in 1989, many of the claims she made are still applicable in today’s society. Because our legal system “does not support differences, it only supports sameness,” it is imperative that before people push for legalizing gay marriage they become aware of the fundamental goals they are trying to achieve. Rather than focusing on the institution of marriage, it would be more beneficial to promote the primary goals of the gay movement – identified by Ettelbrick as “the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.
ReplyDeleteReading about queer parenting struck especially close to home as I completed last night’s reading. My godfather and his partner have been together for over the past 10 years and recently adopted a son. While their child, Oliver, is currently doing great, they experienced several heartbreaking turns of events throughout the process. Because they lack legal protection as a gay couple, they fell victim of having their prospective adopted child taken back by its birth mother two weeks before the scheduled date to receive the child occurred. It is important to consider all factors when thinking of legalizing marriage and the benefits it may provide.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn her article, Ettelbrick seems to argue that legalizing same-sex marriage would be a step backward, not forward, for lesbian and gay liberation. Like Teal, I had never really considered this perspective. Overall, Ettelbrick touches on several themes we have discussed in class, especially the idea of sameness and the idea of privilege. Ettelbrick argues, "by looking to our sameness and de-emphasizing our differences, we don't even place ourselves in a position of power that would allow us to transform marriage from an institution that emphasizes property and state regulation of relationships to an institution which recognizes one of many types of valid and respected relationships" (307). For Ettelbrick, legalizing gay marriage doesn't translate to equality, it translates to sameness. She doesn't want to work within the system for change, she wants to reconfigure the system entirely. For her, gay and lesbian individuals, and couples "will be liberated only when we are respected and accepted for our differences and the diversity we provide to this society" (308). I think that Ettelbrick's argument, though extreme, has several valid points. However, I also think it is important to acknowledge that her argument has several weaknesses. What Ettelbrick fails to acknowledge is that her perspective may not apply to everyone. She comes off as the voice for the entire gay and lesbian community, but every individual should be entitled to their own choices, and those choices should be respected. I agree with Katie, if a gay or lesbian couple doesn't wish to marry, even if marriage becomes universally legalized, that is their choice. But these couples should also have the right to participate in the institution of marriage - that too, is their choice.
ReplyDelete