As I read Ettelbrick’s article and pondered her point about how marriage is an institution and that by getting married you are just feeding into this patriarchal society, a few things came to mind. I agree that marriage does perpetuate this type of society, but I am not sure that I agree with her argument about how gays and lesbians should not fight for the right to get married. Ettelbrick says that she doesn’t want to go “mainstream” and become invisible within the system because she wants relationships of all types to be appreciated. However I think that the real issue here is not about forgetting gays and lesbians by making them invisible, it’s about the acceptance of the system as a whole even when gays and lesbians aren’t included. Because it is a reality that our society values marriage to the extent that it does, it is unrealistic to think that we can change this within the near future. I think that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry because regardless of whether or not it’s perpetuating a flawed system they are placed at a disadvantage by not being able to do so. By no means am I saying that everything about the system is correct, I just think that gays and lesbians refusing to marry because they do not want to go invisible defeats the purpose of the gay rights movement. The movement is for homosexuals to have the same rights that heterosexuals have, and the option to marry someone that they love should be included in that. No one is saying they have to marry their partner, but a same sex marriage amendment would simply provide them with an option to do so. Before tackling the bigger issue of how our system perpetuates sameness by providing people with equal rights, I think that Ettelbrick needs to acknowledge that the opportunity for gays and lesbians to get married would be a positive thing. In order to change the system you are going to need some people within the system to change as well so I think that the civil rights of gays and lesbians need to be honored before we do anything else. I think that Ettelbrick’s overall point and her urge for acceptance of all types of relationships is a great one, but I think that she is being too idealistic in the fact that she assumes it is possible to achieve this while working outside the system.
The queer parenting article also raises some interesting questions of how queer parenting can “de-normalize” gender roles and can challenge the current notion of a “normal” family. In addition, Naples makes the point that queer parenting happens regardless of whether or not the couple is married so the argument that people make about parenting being a reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry is not an effective one. Lastly, the same sex marriage FAQs provides evidence as to how same sex couples are being left out of society and are put at a disadvantage just because the are homosexual. I think that Ettelbrick could address these things more because it is really important to realize that these disadvantages can have enormous effects on a person’s life. While Ettelbrick is accurate in saying that getting married does play into the patriarchal society and does minimize the appreciation of different types of relationships, is it really worth it to go against this and to endorse denying same sex couples all of these privileges that are granted to heterosexual couples?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I could not agree more with David’s opinion regarding Ettelbrick’s article and same-sex marriage. I found that, Ettelbrick did raise interesting points and concerns regarding general problems with the institution of marriage/its implications for our patriarchal society in general. However, once again, we are brought back to the within/outside the system conundrum. Ettlebrick is arguing that because the institution of marriage is flawed, gays and lesbians should not push to be included in this patriarchal and deeply flawed system; her argument, however, raises the same questions that we have considered when reading all of our “outside the system” authors: is resisting the system enough to achieve change? More importantly, what is practical?
ReplyDeleteIn reading Naples’ article, I couldn’t help but notice the recurrence of yet another theme of our course thus far, the notion of “privilege.” In discussing marriage/guardian rights in the context of the gay and lesbian movement, Naples introduces a new level of privilege (or lack thereof), or that which is granted to with heterosexual, married couples seeking to adopt vs. unmarried, homosexual couples in seek of child-bearing rights. She argues, “The process of adopting her own children further inscribes the non-biological co mother’s otherness in a variety of frustrating ways. The adoption procedure includes a thorough assessment of personal background, including a criminal background check and a home study by the Department of Children and Family Services to assess how suitable the home is for the ‘proper rearing of children’… In adoptions by step—fathers or step-mothers who are married to the biological parent, the process is streamlined, another privilege that accrues through marriage. “ Yet again, in our hetero-normative, patriarchal society, privilege is granted to those who fit these defining characteristics, while those who do not tend to be disproportionately disadvantaged.
I similarly could not agree with Lauren and David’s points more: while Ettelbrick’s view on the patriarchal system of marriage is spot-on, we once again must consider whether completely overhauling the system is practical or even feasible.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I was slightly annoyed with Ettelbrick’s almost degrading tone while speaking about the privileges gays and lesbians are barred from enjoying. She mentions how it would be easier to get “family memberships to the local museum, and a right to inherit our spouse’s cherished collection of lesbian mystery novels,” yet her mocking tone fails to place appropriate emphasis on the rights that gays and lesbians are in fact denied as the Human Rights Campaign FAQ sheet clearly points out.
Secondly, in attempting to make her argument, Ettelbrick puts forth some gross over-exaggerations that I feel should be flagged. Arguing for the right to marry does not mean that gays and lesbians feel they “should be treated like equals because [they] are really just like married couples and hold the same values to be true”
(Ettelbrick 306). People of all races, religions, socio-economic class, and sexual orientation get married for a host of varying reasons – it is slightly absurd to suggest that there is one mindset amongst those who are married and that by fighting for marriage, all gays and lesbians will consequently be subscribing to this supposedly existing value-system. Additionally, Ettelbrick claims that the right to marry “will neight get [some marginalized groups] health benefits nor transform them from outsider to insider” (307). However, I must contend her consistent attacks on the issue of health care and other federal benefits and the issue of truly transforming the system. Yes, while gaining the right to marry may not utterly overhaul the system, some gay and lesbian partners truly need these benefits. They need the opportunity to be legally recognized in the face of the law, and it may be more important to this couple in dire need of shared health benefits to be recognized as married, instead of not and “fighting the good fight” in the name of justice. When it comes down to the lowest-level, is it more beneficial to keep trying to “transform the system” although it has no clear road-map and goals, or does it make more sense to fight one battle at a time?
I agree with Ettelbrick’s concluding comment that “We must first break the tradition of piling benefits and privileges on to those who are married. Only when we de-institutionalize marriage and bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried will each of us have a true choice” (308). However, until this day comes, I think a more probable approach is the one Naples discusses in her article. As she states, “organizers need to meet people where they are and help facilitate their political goals, not criticize them for a lack of consciousness around the constraints of marriage as a patriarchal and heterosexist institution” (680). Naples and her partner’s decision to have children changes the “field of vision for those [they] interact with,” and involves “daily negotiations, strategic choices, and a commitment to challenging heterosexual privilege in everyday life” (682, 683). Naples approach allows her to live her life as she wants to while also creating slight, yet lasting impacts, and those she encounters – a much more realistic approach to change than simply shouting that “marriage is not a path to liberation.”
I agree with David that denying same-sex marriages because homosexuals don't want to play into traditional customs is not logical. While Ettelbrick's essay did a wonderful job of pointing out a side of the debate that most people are unaware of, legalizing same-sex marriage would allow people to make a decision whether or not to get married on an individual basis.
ReplyDeleteI really like the points that have been made about the Naples's article, especially that Naples has kind of carved a new path for herself and her family by "de-normalizing" the gender roles of parents in families. Just like the gender roles that exist in marriage, the traditional gender roles in parenting are so constraining and limiting that people who do not fall into these two categories are at an immediate disadvantage and are forced to face the oppression that our culture puts on those who are different and do not fit in. But until our culture is able to change its ideologies on what is normal and acceptable, individuals like Naples must break the barriers of the patriarchal and heterosexual institutions that exist today for themselves and their families.
ReplyDelete