Response to 10/14 Readings

After reading Ettelbrick's article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation", I really disagreed strongly with the article. I believe that she put too much emphasis and responsibility on the gay and lesbian community to change the entire social structure of the modern western society. She emphasizes that simply giving same-sex couples the right to marry simply denies them even more power and independence by forcing them to conform to our current standards and expectations of marriage. At one point, Paula claims that "the gay and lesbian community and laid the groundwork for revolutionizing society's view of family" (308). Although this revolution would most likely be a good and necessary thing for our society, I do not think it is fair that Ettelbrick puts this expectation on the gay and lesbian community. One of the primary goals of many same-sex couples is simply to be treated equally in our society, and allowing them to marry is a clear step towards gaining that equality. In addition, if the homosexual community does not continue to fight for marriage, then they will clearly be left without many of the rights that are outlined in the Human Rights Campaign article on "Why do same-sex couples want to marry?" and "Why aren't civil unions enough?". The many rights and protections listed in this document (including hospital visitation, social security, family leave, home protection and multiple others) clearly show that same-sex couples are missing out on many privileges granted to "traditional" heterosexual couples. Ettelbrick starts her article by describing marriage as an "institution that provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships" (305-306). She, of course, speaks of this as a negative thing; however I honestly don't have that much of a problem with it. The patriarchal emphasis of marriage, I do agree, has a negative impact on women's role in modern society; however the actual institution of the holy/civil marriage between two people still seems like a good thing to me.

I agree that now, marriage defines some relationships as more valid than others; however if same-sex (or marriage between ANY sexes) marriages were legalized, then I actually believe this inequality would be more leveled out. We live in a society that currently MUST have a norm and those people and relationships that fall outside of the norm are often not accepted. The more we are able to "normalize" same-sex relationships (by allowing marriage), the more accepted these people and relationships will be. Paula emphasizes that gay and lesbian couples will only be accepted and supported DESPITE their differences from the dominant culture; however I don't completely agree with this. Marriage being between a man and a woman is a culturally accepted norm just as marriage between two similarly aged people (usually 20 years or older) is currently the norm. Many generations ago, however, women would be expected to get married at the age of 13 or 14 to much older men (often 30 years or older). In our current society, these marriages are not even legal since the girl would not even be 18. The same shift in the views of marriage can occur to come to accept same-sex marriages just as shifts occur in the acceptance of the appropriate age of marriage.