Same sex marriage. This has been one of the most controversial and talked about topics in recent years. However recently, it seems to have gained more press than ever before. Today’s three readings focused on the on two topics: same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting.
I think that the same-sex marriage FAQ document clearly lays out what same-sex marriage actually entails and how it is very different than just a same-sex union. I think that this is very important and interesting reading because I believe that a lot of people do not understand why same-sex marriage is so important to gay couples and also, how different civil unions are from marriage.
Naples article focused more on the issue of same-sex parenting. This was another very interesting article because I feel that same-sex parenting is a subject that is not often addressed. It seems that people tend to focus more on same-sex marriage, rather than parenting. Since my family is very good family friends with a gay couple who has gone through the adoption process, I have heard some of the horrors that gay men face when trying to adopt a child. Thus, Naples article seems to reiterate what I have heard firsthand. It is my hope/belief that as same-sex marriage becomes legalized in more states and countries throughout the world, same-sex parenting will hopefully become easier.
However, Ettelbrick’s article “Marriage and Liberation” differed from the other two articles. Ettelbrick, a lesbian, did not support this effort to legalize gay marriage. “For two major reasons. First, marriage will not liberate us lesbians and gay men…it will constrain us…and undermine the goals of gay liberation. Second, attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity” (Ettelbrick 2). I think that this is a very unusual and almost unheard of standpoint for a lesbian to take. I disagree with Ettelbrick. I believe that legalizing gay marriage will help society become more accepting. For example, when same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex couples will also be granted legal protections and rights under state and federal law (FAQ 2). Thus, in my opinion, that in order to take steps towards liberation, a group must gain rights along the way. Thus, same-sex marriage will not constrain, but rather will help liberate gay men and women. Ultimately, it seems that Ettelbrick is more against the institution of marriage more than anything else.
We currently live in a society that is dominated by the idea that families must be heteronormative. In other words, the majority of society believes that a family must be a nuclear family, which is composed of a mother, father and children. These people tend to consider same-sex families as unacceptable and even offensive.
For example, Heinz created a Deli Mayo commercial that shows a same-sex family. This commercial, which shows two men sharing a kiss, received so many complaints, that it was pulled off the air in less than a week. It is my opinion that if same-sex marriage was legalized and thus, had the same federal and state rights as heterosexual couples, than this commercial would not be pulled off the airwaves. This would then further gay men and lesbians’ liberation. Thus, this further exemplifies why I disagree with Ettelbrick’s stance on marriage.
Despite the fact that throughout the three articles there were examples of the status of same-sex marriage in certain states, there was not a list of all the states individual stance on same-sex marriage. I wish that there was a list of all the legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States and the rest of the world. For I feel that, despite my knowledge of this subject, states are constantly changing their stance on this issue.
Response to Katrina 4/5/10
ReplyDeleteI also struggled a little bit with Ettelbrick’s argument against gay marriage. First off I must concede that I did not realize that so many benefits came with marriage. I suppose that I subconsciously was aware of some of them, for example I knew that my mom, myself, and my brother receive insurance benefits because of my dad’s job, but I hadn’t really thought about other things such as hospital visitation rights. In any case, I agree with Katrina that Ettelbrick is against the idea of marriage as an institution as suggested by the first sentence of the article: “‘Marriage is a great institution, if you like living in institutions.’” It seems like her criticisms center around the notion that supporting marriage further ostracizes those who choose not to marry, and contends that “we must first break the tradition of piling benefits and privileges on to those who are married, while ignoring the real life needs of those who are not” (Ettelbrick 308). She wants to “de-institutionalize” marriage. But what I don’t really understand is what would that look like? I assume she means that the benefits extended to married people should be extended to everyone else, to “level the playing field” in a sense, or that marriage should not be a reason to receive benefits. I have a hard time visualizing this. For a little while Ettelbrick stays on the issue of the limitations of marriage benefits reaching marginal members of the gay and lesbian community, asserting that marriage for them isn’t necessarily beneficial because “that choice assumes that we have a job and that our employer provides us with health benefits” (Ettelbrick 307). But doesn’t that apply to all marginal members of society? Being gay certainly adds another dimension to one’s identity, their advantages and their disadvantages, but who is to say that being a gay middle-class white woman is less advantageous than being, for example, a poor black woman? What I’m getting at is that there are many people out there, not all of them gay, who may have trouble getting a job/getting a job that provides health benefits. Ettelbrick has a point that she makes at the very end, that marriage will not automatically make it acceptable to be gay or lesbian, but I can’t help but feel like at least for the moment to somehow getting access to the benefits provided by marriage would be desirable. Finally, she doesn’t really provide any solutions to her beef with marriage except by saying that marriage should be “de-institutionalized.” But somehow I feel like it is very unlikely to dethrone a centuries old concept….
Learning about all of the issues we discuss in this class makes me wonder who was deemed powerful enough to define “normal” in the first place. Where did we even get the idea that there should be a norm? Creating a tiny box of characteristics that are considered normal makes talking about anything different seem “unnatural” or just plain weird. If no one had decided that heterosexuality was normal in the beginning than I doubt homosexuality would have been kept so secretive for so long. As a result, society wouldn’t have become accustomed to the standard nuclear family, leaving them much more open to the image and realities of same sex parents. Instead, I feel like people have become accustomed to only like what they know. Where they could give new things a chance, society as a whole seems too stubborn to accept things like same sex marriage and parenting, simply because it is different than what they already know. I wish more people would open their eyes and realize that just because something is different than them, it doesn’t make it “unacceptable”.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I shared Katrina’s shock while reading Ettelbrick’s “Marriage and Liberation” piece. I didn’t think I would ever read a piece written by a lesbian writer who did not support same sex marriage. However, after reading what she had to say and reflecting on it a little bit, I understand her point of view a little more. Like the early feminists used to say, “you can’t change the master with the master’s tools”, the LGTBQ community will not be able to change the institution of marriage simply by gaining access to the institution. Ettelbrick felt that the LGTBQ community would not reach justice by assimilating into the dominant culture. Instead of reaching the justice they want so earnestly, they would be led into a “trap”. Ettelbrick suggested that instead of chasing liberation through marriage, the LGTBQ community should only strive to be accepted when they are “supported in society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships”. This is the argument I understand the most. Although I do not think gay couples should be denied the right to get married, I believe they also would benefit from creating a different ceremony, union, that received equal rights and benefits of marriage. Coming up with something that satisfies these criteria, might also satisfy Ettelbrick and those who feel similarly to her.
Similarly, i struggled with Ettelbrick's argument. While her article might be outdated, it gives us a perspective on same-sex marriage that many of us, particularly myself, have never realized before. I definitely agree with Katrina that varying laws in different states only confuses the matter. Regardless of where people stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, we should either have a federal law which governs all states or at least have states respect the laws of other states if their inhabitants move or are traveling.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Katrina tied the example of the Deli Mayo commercial into her post. I think this brings up how even if laws are changed, people's attitudes are not -- so even if gay marriage is legalized, it's going to take a long time for people's attitudes about gay marriage to change along with the laws. Hopefully, though, as marriage becomes legalized in more states, people will be forced to simply accept it and acknowledge that while there are inherent differences, it's their own choice. I agree with everyone's comments on Ettelbrick's argument, I also think it's odd that while she is trying to get people to recognize differences, she is grouping all gay and lesbian people together saying that same-sex marriage would be bad for all same-sex couples, which I definitely don't think is true.
ReplyDelete