In Paula Ettelbrick's essay on marriage, she concludes that marriage is not a path to liberation for anyone; whether your gay or straight. But in fact that marriage as an institution creates a division between the "have's" and the "have nots" as our legal system and system of benefits favors those who have chosen to marry over those who have not. I agree with many of the points Ettelbrick makes. I have been taught about the benefits of marriage throughout my life, but never was it clear to me how these benefits marginalized those who don't "fit the bill." Her point about how the legalization of gay marriage will do nothing but reassert these imbalances that are in place really helped me understand the unfair qualities of this institution. As well, her example of a lesbian woman who is not allowed to be with her wounded partner in a hospital room because she is not "family" is clearly bureaucratic cruelty. As well, when she compares this situation to that of affirmative action, her point became even clearer.
"will result, at best, in limited or narrowed 'justice' for those closest to power at the expense of those who have been historically marginalized." One area of her essay that I found a bit confusing was her opinion on our legal system. She states that the laws in the US have a concept of equality that does not support differences, it supports sameness. But she also notes the need for all relationships to be recognized legally. So does she believe our society can change its ways through an alteration of the laws? Or that we as people have to change and the laws will follow suit?
What I found most interesting in Nancy Naples essay was the bit about a co-mother's relationship to her daughter, given birth to by her lesbian partner. The partner who gave birth to the child feels suddenly more accepted in conventional society, as her role of "mother" suddenly trumps her sexual orientation. However the co-mother, who did not give birth, finds herself at a loss for explaining her relationship to her daughter, which is entirely equivalent to that of a father, but somehow our language doesn't permit this relationship justice.
The very notion of "labels" is very prevalent in our society, as we have noted throughout this course. Be it an infant who is ambiguously gendered, or a two people who have an ambiguous relationship, it appears our society is obsessed with making things clearer for strangers. Why does everyone have to understand everyone else's business? is it central to a functioning society? How can a society function without labels?
Cait I like the points you made about how the institution of marriage and other US legal institutions as well promote a sense of sameness and does not allow for differences. While the majority of the American population may fit into these institutions, like marriage, there is a large minority that does not and these people are simply left out. While Ettelbrick does argue that allowing same-sex marriage would not acknowledge differences but only push people into a category, I think she contradicts herself because she seems to be putting gay and lesbian couples into a single category. Thus I think it's important to remember that some same-sex couples may in fact want to get married, whether or not marriage allows for differences or not.
ReplyDelete