All three texts expose marriage to be an invisible system of power and privilege.
Same Sex Marriage FAQS
I found myself outraged when reading Same Sex Marriage FAQS. I didn’t realize that couples that are joined in a civil union are restricted from the same government benefits that married couples receive. This article exposes this inequality. It seems as if the American system is working against homosexuality; attempting to show those who deviate against the norms of society that it is easier or, better yet, it is beneficial to be a heterosexual.
Andrea Vaccaro, “Soldier in a Long White Dress”
It was heart breaking to hear Vaccaro’s recount of her wedding day. She describes it as “bittersweet” because, even though she was getting married to the woman she loved, she knew that her wedding would be seen as a “second-class union.” Until now, I didn’t realize that this was an unearned privilege of mine. As a heterosexual female, I have the privilege of not feeling like my marriage is a second-class union.
Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”
In this article, Ettlebrick claims that lesbians and gay men look to marriage for self-affirmation. Her statement in fact devalues their marriage as an attempt to fit into society. To me, this sounds like Ettelbrick is saying that the motive for marriage in the LGBTQ community is in order to appear straight. If I understand this correctly, then, I think that it is unfair to condemn marriage to the point where those who want to openly display their love are seen as detrimental to achieving equality. Moreover, she is adamantly against the notion of marriage for homosexuals because she feels that it “fails to incorporate a broader understanding of the underlying inequities that operate to deny justice to a fuller range of people and groups”(306). She is saying that regardless of marital status all gays and lesbians should receive equality to heterosexuals. However, I feel like change doesn’t occur over night, but in increments. And if we have to start somewhere, why not start with marriage for homosexuals.
Quotes and Commentary:
Leading the Way: “We are ‘civil unioned,’ a complete abstraction to the binaries ‘single’ and ‘married’ on which society is based. Civil union is not the answer; it is simply a way of reinforcing second class citizenship”(37) – Oppressors reinforce oppression by keeping the oppressed in the dark; distracting them and drawing their energies elsewhere or giving a little without expecting to give more in the future in an attempt to silence them. It’s kind of like the saying to ‘give a dog a bone.’ According to Ettlebrick, by doing so, we began to undermine the gay/lesbian movement’s purpose.
“… I entered a committed and loving relationships knowing it will be treated as a second-class union, knowing that people-even those closest to me-do not have the language to call us ‘spouses’ or ‘wives’ but rather ‘partners,’ as if we were at a square dance”(37)
Q. Why do we call the union between heterosexual couples a marriage, but the union between homosexual couples a civil union?
The fact that troubles me most from "Same Sex Marriage FAQs" is the piece about hospital visitation rights. I am curious to know more about this. Though I can certainly see the heartache it causes for same-sex couples, the problem seems even bigger then that. This connects to Ettelbrick's points. The automatic visitation rights of a spouse assumes that that individual is the most important one in the injured person's life. This is an unfair assumption. What about single people? Ettelbrick is critical of the very institution of marriage not simply its exclusive heterosexual qualities.
ReplyDeleteI think that its also important to remember that this institution of marriage has shifted dramatically over time. Some Conservatives who argue against same-sex marriage uphold the Bible as proof. Though this does seem logical is some ways, in others it is not. Based on my study of the Bible, I do think one could make a pretty good case for its support of heterosexual interactions. However the sanctity of marriage is another matter. The polygamous, polyamourous nature along with the presence of both wife and the distinct concubine all combine to create an image of marriage very different from todays'. I think it is important to remember that current "Christian" concepts of marriage today are actually very different from those depicted in parts of the Bible. This shows that some of this ideal is in fact culturally constructed independent of any faith.
Though we have a tendency to say that all cultures and all times have a concept of marriage, I shy from that because marriage means very different things in different contexts. This is where Ettlebrick struggles, she wants to change the meaning of marriage before accepting it for straight or queer couples. I actually like this approach. It is troublesome in some ways, it does not give immediate acknowledgement of visitation rights, but once achieved its results could be much more pervasive and positively influence straight, queer, single, and those in a relationship.