Main Post Mar/8

Once again, today’s reading were eye opening. The reading which provided information  from the Human Rights Campaign about same-sex marriage and why people in same-sex relationships would want to marry set the tone for issues regarding on marriage. Why would a couple decide to marry? The author’s response was clearly, ¨“because they are in love, just met the love of their lives, or more likely, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person and want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer….¨ The text then moves on to present a laundry list of the rights and protections that are denied by the United States government to same sex married couples, including hospital visitations, health insurance, family leave, retirement savings, estate taxes, social security benefits, and immigration rights. Towards the end, it also address the problem of civil unions and why they are ¨fake¨or ¨not the real deal¨ because they are not protected by every state in the country or by the same rights as straight couples have.

Paula Ettelbrick’s essay entitled, “Since when is marriage a path to liberation?” discuesses how marriage is one of the mos “venerable and impenetrable” institutions in our society the folds you into society. For a long time, women have been repulsed by the notion of marriage as  being the provider of “the ultimate acceptance in relationships in our society”. Yet, it is this “ultimate acceptance” (that only marriage is said to be able to provide) that has made it the main priority in many gay and lesbian couples agenda. This is hardly something anyone can be blamed for. After all, it`s Aceptance… who wouldn’t want it?? Nonetheless, Ettelbrick writes that allowing same sex marriage will not put the nail in the coffin, meaning it not ease our problems or make everything easy and smooth. In fact, she argues that marriage will not liberate gay couples, or be able to change the foundations in which society is based upon. She explains that even if gay couples are able to gain those rights, it is not synonymous or equal justice. Her reasoning lies behind the fact the no one should have control over another person, yet the legal system that has penetrated our society has reached so deeply into our lives encourages such kind of behavior. Ettelbrick compares gay justice with female justice. She feels that the real problem is that gay and straight marriage would be equated and this logic of ¨de-emphasizing differences¨ is simply wrong because they are inherently not equal. One consequence, se says, is that gay marriage would discriminate gay sex or those that are not married, causing further ¨sexual oppression¨ than what they face in their present status.

Finally, she points that that even though gay marriage can be seen as a breakthrough that is driven for the hope for acceptance and assimilation, it will not be enough to destroy the system; rather it will only deepen it. For instance, she says that it will not address the unfairness in health insurance, and other benefit and rights that straight married couples enjoy in this country. As a result, she concludes that since the groundwork has been laid, gays and lesbians should pursue “broader goals than the right to marry”. Only after they have realized their diversity can progress be made.