Follow Up: Responding to Michele

The readings for today’s blog post all reflect different authors’ beliefs on same-sex marriage. I agree with Michele that these readings opened my eyes to the issues facing same-sex partners in today’s society. While Paula Ettelbrick in Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation took a more forceful tone in advocating her platform on this notion, Naples focused more on impact of same-sex parenting and offers solutions to raise awareness among members of LGBQT community of the costs and benefits of marriage. Furthermore, the FAQ sheet, like Michele, provided me with valuable information regarding the benefits of marriage. I had no idea that there is such an extensive list of benefits to marriage including everything from ability to take off work for “family leave” to estate taxes. It is no wonder what many same-sex couples want to marry in order to receive the same benefits as those who are in a marriage obtain. I agree with Michele that “we cannot let sexuality determine what rights someone should have.”

I think that the question of whether marriage represents a betrayal of the goals of lesbian/gay liberation or guaranteeing them equal rights in society is a controversial topic that has been debated all across the country. I think marriage certainly weds you not only to a selected individual, but also to a whole set of structures that society deems as the norm. While there are benefits to marriage (as seen in the FAQ sheet), I do acknowledge the points that the authors, particularly Ettelbrick, make regarding the negative side. Paula Ettelbrick elaborates on the view of the importance and impact of marriage on gays and lesbians. While she advocates same-sex relationships, in terms of marriage, she adds caution and argues that it “will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation” (306). It other words, she believes that marriage forces gays and lesbians to conform to societal norms, be just like heterosexual couples, and have the same goals and purposes, undermining their own identity. She adds that when marriage between gays and lesbians is made, it is not power and equality but rather a false sense of empowerment. Therefore, Ettelbrick argues that marriage should not be the goal of the lesbian/gay movement. I agree with her point that gays/lesbians should not have to compare themselves to married couples to gain the right for equality. In our society we should embrace differences. However, how will they gain the rights then that those in marriages receive?

I also liked Ettelbrick’s comparison of the negative implications or marriage for gays/lesbians to that of sexually active non-married women. I agree that both face the “stigma and double standard around sex and sexual activity” (307). I never thought about this connection, but now see the similarities. This idea all goes back to society’s view that everyone must conform and be the same; society looks down upon those who deviate. Who wants to live in a society where everyone is the same? Until drastic measures are made in terms of acceptance into society, our culture will result in people, such as gays and lesbians, to be “forced to claim that are just like heterosexual couples” when in fact for a large majority of them that is not the case.
So I wonder: what kind of alternatives are there?

I think there are many underlying social issues that need to be addressed. As she writes, “unless we continue the work our community has begun to spread the privilege around to other relationships” marriage for gays and lesbians will not provide a real choice. She also adds that we must “deinstitutionalize marriage and bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried.” Naples adds in her conclusion that “destabilizing the powerful hegemony of heteronormativity, involves daily negotiations, strategic choices, and a commitment to challenging heterosexual privilege in everyday life” (683). I agree with Naples when she adds that costs as well as benefits of campaigns for same-sex marriage must be addressed. I think through increasing awareness of the issue and open discussions, positive changes can be made and we can as Ettelbrick advocates, reorder “society’s view of reality” (307). Nonetheless, I think it will be a long way to go.