In the fact-sheet about same-sex couples and marriage, two lists are laid out - a list of reasons why same-sex couples are fighting for their right to get married as well as a list of marital benefits that same-sex couples are denied. The sheet lists three main reasons that same-sex couples are fighting so hard for this right. First, same-sex couples want to "honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer," meaning that they want to publicly commit themselves to each other for life no matter what they may face. Marriage is the most sacred way to bind themselves together and proclaim their love to the rest of the world; no other union holds the same connotation, clout, or recognition that marriage has, which means same-sex couples' relationships are not taken as seriously or seen as equals with married heterosexual couples' relationships because they cannot have this label. Second, due to the benefits that marriage brings to a couple, same-sex couples want to marry to protect any children they may have; if they are legally married, all of the included benefits can be used to provide for or help their children especially during times of hardship. Finally, same-sex couples want to marry based on our national belief that all people are equal and should have equal rights - the fact that same-sex couples are denied benefits that other couples have violates this principle that our country was built on. Until same-sex couples receive the right to marry and all these benefits, saying that we stand for equality is hypocritical. Since the law defines "marriage" as a union between a man and woman, these benefits are relegated to only heterosexual couples by default; same-sex couples cannot have these benefits because they do not fit the definition or requirements to be considered "married" according to the law. Because they cannot have this title on their relationship, they are denied the rights and benefits that married couples enjoy - among these are the rights to visit their spouse in the hospital, receive Social Security survivor benefits, have spousal health insurance, inherit property without estate taxes, inherit 401(k) funds without paying taxes, have unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse, petition for spouses to immigrate to America, live together in nursing homes, keep their houses despite having to pay high medical and nursing home costs, and be entitled to a dead spouse's pension. In addition, same-sex couples who have gotten civil unions in states that do permit them cannot be guaranteed that their civil union and all the benefits they are entitled to will be recognized in other states or at the national level. Because of the extreme gap between civil unions' and marriages' benefits and social recognition, civil unions are not enough - "they are separate and unequal" from marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage that gives same-sex couples all the rights that heterosexual married couples have is the only acceptable solution to this problem.
Ettelbrick takes an anti-marriage stance because she believes that marriage is an assimilation tool that will mainstream gay and lesbian couples into the majority. She says that "[m]arriage provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships in our society, and gives those who marry an insider status of the most powerful kind (305-306)." Because gay marriage does not fit into the patriarchal society in which we participate and live, gay and lesbian couples are "outsiders" or "have-nots" because they cannot marry; if they can marry, they will be transformed into "insiders" or "haves" and then everything will be just fine. However, she asserts that obtaining the right to marry will not liberate homosexuals, but "constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation (306)" and "will not transform our society...into one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity (306)." Marriage will force gays and lesbians to conform to the mainstream which will make them lose their unique perspective, ideas, and thoughts. She does not claim that same-sex couples should not have a right to marry, but she does think that the way we think about justice for gay and lesbian couples is too narrow because we do not incorporate other inequalities and discrimination that they face such as sexism for lesbians and racism for blacks. Using a dual perspective of rights and justice, "justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships (306)." In other words, the very concept of equality requires sameness because if everyone is not the same, equality cannot be possible. Therefore, in order to petition to this definition of equality, gay couples will have to petition themselves as being the same as straight couples - which is obviously not true. Also, gay men and lesbians' sexuality will be split into "acceptable" sex within marriage and "stigmatized" sex outside of marriage, much like heterosexual sex is delineated. All of the differences and acceptance of different sexual and social relationships in the homosexual community will be lost. Finally, she touches on the gay community's need for acceptance by society, which is a driving force behind the push for gay marriage; this "acceptance" is not universal and not everyone will have access the benefits that marriage provides - for example, a white gay couple with good jobs that is already close to being in the mainstream culture will enormously benefit from being able to marry, but a black lesbian couple with bad jobs will not due to sexism, racism, and few health benefits from these bad jobs. This acceptance is defined by the state, which only recognizes marriage and family as legitimate relationships deserving of respect; we need to make the state and society see that other relationships deserve the same respect and protection as marriage as well as spread the benefits lumped onto married couples across the community and the relationship spectrum. Because marriage is a product of this patriarchal society, it will not change it; what will is the acceptance and respect for all kinds of relationships and diversity among the gay community and beyond.
In Naples, she first discusses the political environment that surrounds gay marriage and how it does not reflect society at large. Politicians passed several laws defining marriage as a union between a man and woman in order to "protect" traditional marriage because gay marriage, in the words of George Bush, would undermine "the welfare of the children and the stability of society (679)." After this introduction, she argues that Ettelbrick's stance - that marriage will inevitably lead gays to assimilate and then participate in a patriarchal society where these marital benefits will only be available to some of the homosexual community - is the wrong approach and is not indicative of the homosexual community's views. She cites an example of 30% of attendees at Black Gay Pride ranked marriage/domestic partnership as one of the main issues facing their community (680). She debunks the "protection of children" claim against gay marriage by simply stating that gays and lesbians have kids and will continue to have kids despite all this hullabaloo. Plus "[q]ueer parenting can destabilize gender essentialism and other taken-for-granted assumptions about gender, sexuality, and family well as pose challenges to regimes of normalization that shape contemporary institutions (680)." She then uses her own experience as a soon-to-be comother with her pregnant partner to compare with heterosexual couples' experiences - she has to deal with obstacles like finding a hospital or midwife that will deliver the babies, asserting her role as mother with her children and society, and legally adopting her own kids that heterosexual couples don't have to deal with. She broadens her view to marriage and civil unions, saying that same-sex marriages are not recognized in many states and civil unions can complicate adoptions - these discrepancies will provide further hurdles that same-sex couples will have to clear both for their own relationship to get recognized and to have kids. All of these examples as well as her own experiences as a lesbian in a committed relationship further her argument that "[t]he salience of the heteronormative family form is evident everywhere we turn (682)." A family with a father and a mother is the norm that society accepts - anything else, just like with intersex people, is abnormal and not accepted. Therefore, to promote the idea that family can be defined in other ways besides a mother and father, Naples asserts that we need to take the energy and coverage that same-sex marriage and queer parenting debates generate, use it to tear down the narrow definitions and beliefs society has of and about family and rearing children, and challenge heterosexual privilege.
No comments:
Post a Comment