Then, I moved on to Ettelbrick's article. I liked this article because she pointed out a lot of the problematic issues within the American legal system, and didn't think legislation allowing same-sex marriage is the answer to all of the obstacles gay and lesbian individuals and couples face. Ettelbrick points out how the US legal system acknowledges sameness, not difference, and by allowing same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians can simply be accepted into mainstream society and lose their "real" identity. Ettelbrick wants to illustrate that homosexual individuals and couples are inherently different from heterosexual individuals and couples; these differences are not bad. In fact, she thinks that if same-sex marriage were permitted, people would just see homosexual couples as the "same" as everyone else, rather than acknowledging the positive "differences and diversity" they bring to society. Moreover, it's important to realize that just because gay and lesbian couples could be granted the RIGHT to marry, it's not certain that every gay and lesbian couple would exercise this right. They may be happy with their relationship as is, and do not feel as though they need to validate their love or their partnership by having the state sign a piece of paper to prove that they have indeed entered into the institution of marriage. We can acknowledge heterosexual couples that live in a "common-law" marriage, but a homosexual couple living together for a number of years would not be granted the same rights in case of emergency, death, illness, etc. I think Ettelbrick gets it right in advocating domestic partnership as a solution to this problem; however, I think same-sex marriage should be a legal option for those who want to pursue it.
I think the most important point that Ettelbrick pointed out in the conclusion of her article was that same-sex marriage need not be the pinnacle achievement for gays and lesbians. It is a big step forward for in terms of equality rights, in terms of legal rights and basic recognition of their relationships. However, Ettelbrick emphasizes that even if same-sex marriage becomes part of US law, it's not the end of the struggle for equality for the gay and lesbian community. It's a big piece of the very large puzzle.
Finally, I was blown away by some of the facts I learned about in Naples' article. I didn't know that the non-birth mother had to legally adopt a child if a lesbian couple wanted to co-mother together. They are being forced to adopt their own children! Meanwhile, there are plenty of women who have babies every day with men who have no interest in being fathers, but these men often still get their names on the birth certificate. And we're denying this inherent right to people that actually want children? Wow -- it seems really backwards to me. Things like this just further segregate society, and make gay and lesbian couples seem so alien to us. If a gay or lesbian couple wants to adopt and they are fit to be parents, then why does the legal system need to complicate things?
To conclude, these articles really emphasized to me that same-sex marriage and the variety of issues surrounding it isn't so cut and dry. It's not one or the other, black and white -- there are so many gray areas involved. Marriage or civil union or domestic partnership? Which is best for the couple? What is best for any children involved? In my humble opinion, I think that same-sex marriage should be a right afforded to every individual, just so the option is there. But like Ettelbrick, I think domestic partnership should also be extended to acknowledge same-sex couples. Whatever happens in terms of legislation in the future, the bottom line is that gay and lesbian individuals and couples should not be "otherized" by the law. We can acknowledge their differences -- differences that make the gay and lesbian community unique and diverse citizens in mainstream society -- but the same rights and freedoms afforded to everyone by law should be extended to them if we as human beings -- that is, of every sexual orientation -- want to say we live in a truly inclusive, accepting, loving and tolerant society.
One of the key things I took away from the readings and that Lisa also did a very good job of pointing out, is that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to have options and choose the life and type of partnership -- marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership -- that they want. As Ettelbrick points out, although same-sex marriage would allow gay/lesbian couples to be able to identify with society and fit into this important institution, it would not acknowledge the differences of gays and lesbians, which is essential to the gay liberation movement. Although I understand Ettelbrick's point here, I also think making same-sex marriage legal would give gay/lesbian couples the option to gain the same legal rights heterosexual couples have and would provide the same opportunities that heterosexual couples have.
ReplyDeleteAs the Naples's article points out, gay/lesbian people inevitably face difficult challenges when it comes to having a family that heterosexual couples do not, and the problem I find that Naples's highlights is that the state has so much control over the right to have a family that if you don't fit in to the exact criteria or requirements, it's your own loss. However, as Naples and Ettelbrick both point out, the law should provide the right to choose whatever option is suitable for any family -- gay or straight, and it just so happens that in our society, gay/lesbian couples simply do not have this choice.
As the previous posts mentioned, I definitely think that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry. I don’t quite understand how someone can deny another person rights just because of their sexual orientation. I was surprised while reading the FAQ’s. I had no idea that gay and lesbian couples were denied so many rights that are granted to heterosexual couples. It was definitely eye opening and a bit disheartening to realize the inequalities that affect gay and lesbian couples.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought Ettelbrick had some valid arguments in her article, I had a hard time understanding some of her theories. I don’t quite understand why Ettelbrick is taking such a negative stance against granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marriage. She argues that in order for change to truly take place, it needs to happen from the bottom up. Social change and acceptance needs to happen before liberation takes place, according to Ettelbrick. I definitely agree with her on that point. But, I don’t think allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would be as negative as she makes it seem. Looking through our history, it is easy to notice periods of change where groups were granted more freedoms and liberties. Although change didn’t necessarily happen over night, it was a step in the right direction. Today, giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is definitely a step towards equality.
I think Ettlebrick sees the obtaining the right to marry as a small goal that will not solve the main issues that the LGBTQ community face in our society. Though it is entirely wrong that this community of people are denied rights based on their sexual orientation, the real issue at hand is the fact that there is even a debate surrounding the issue. The fact that people are so ignorant towards people different then themselves is very disheartening. I think Ettlebrick is just worried that if gays and lesbians are given the right to marry people with think the issue is dead, when it clearly is not.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the right to marry does not equate equality, Ettlebrick has a few oversights. First, she does not consider lesbians or gays who have different perspectives on what it means to be homosexuals. While Ettlebrick views the right to marry as a pander to the patriarchal establishment, if some homosexual couples want the right to get a "proper marriage" than that is their choice, and they should have the right to do so. Ettlebrick is dead on when she comments that equal rights does not mean equality. Socially, Americans need to be more open minded when it comes to differing lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteGay and lesbian parenting is also not so cut and dry. On Tuesday I went to a Brown Bag that was given by two Colgate alums (00' and 03') who talked about their experience being a gay couple and wanting children. I was amazed by the complicated process. Gay adoption is complication process, but even having a biological child (if in a lesbian relationship) can bring on a multitude of legal obstacles. For example, one woman wanted to be pregnant, but wasn't able to, so her partner gave her one of her eggs and to do this, she needed legal contracts. It is unfair that if a gay couple decides to adopt or have a child, it is so much more legally complicated than a heterosexual child.
ReplyDelete