Until reading Ettelbeck, I had never realized that gay men and lesbian women may be opposed to marriage rights. Her article surprised me, for I cannot understand her belief in the importance of remaining unmarried, as marriage would be an injustice to her lifestyle. I find her argument to lack conviction for she is opposed to marriage for the sameness and assimilation it brings to gays as they 'enter' mainstream culture. Though marriage is a time-honored tradition that once celebrated only certain people, that is, straight people of the same race and religion, with time, the institution has changed, as it should, to meet the needs of the people. Interracial marriage is widespread, as are mixed religion marriages. Why then must gay marriage mean the assimilation of gay people into mainstream culture? Ettelbeck thinks that gay marriage will lead to the "outlawing of all gay and lesbian sex which is not performed in a marital context" (307), yet just as straight people often choose not to welcome the institution of marriage into their lives, so too may gay couples choose their own lifestyle without being "cloaked in and regulated by marriage" (307). I recognize that such lifestyle choices are uncommon and often looked down upon; perhaps then we should fight to alleviate this type of prejudice against non-married same-sex or straight couples. I think it's important to remember that this was published in 1989; today, the radical "reordering of society's views of family" (308) is well underway: Does anyone watch Modern Family? Mitchell and Cam's lifestyle, with adopted baby Lily, is far different than, say, that of Colin Firth's character in A Single Man, who is not even welcome at the funeral of his partner of 16 years. I am more on board with Naples, that instead of fighting this fight against same-sex marriage, we should be questioning, “How can we harness the political energy that has been unleashed by the debates over same-sex marriage and queer parenting to destabilize the taken-for-granted notions of what counts as a family and what can be in the best interests of children in resilient and inclusive society?” (682). Let's stop fighting against marriage as an institution, Ettelbeck, and instead advocate for the acceptance of family units and lifestyles of all types.
I agree with Eileen 100%. I was surprised to hear that same-sex couples would be opposed to legitimatizing their relationships in the eyes of the state because it would force them to "pass." I even find it a bit confrontational that Ettelbrick refuses to allow a "pro-choice" mentality for other same-sex couples to choose their right to a sanctified marriage by claiming it would limit the options for couples who do not want to conform. I was also a bit put-off by a couple of her statements, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and transforming the very fabric of society" and "As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women" (both on page 306). I think that being queer is not pushing against the mainstream but rather expressing oneself regardless of the mainstream. Does Ettelbrick require a politicized agenda in order to become romantically involved with a partner of the same sex? Also, I do not think I (as a heterosexual woman) am fundamentally different from a lesbian woman; I think some of our experiences are fundamentally different but at the core we are more similar than different. I think Naples has a better idea about same-sex marriage, it is better to mold something new out of existing energy than to destroy all of the energy through identity politics.
ReplyDeleteSorry for posting so late--I had a delayed flight and no internet access while out of town except for email via my phone. So, here's my post...
ReplyDeleteRegarding Ettelbrick, I'd have to agree with Lindsey and Eileen. I feel like Ettelbrick is creating even more of a stigma against homosexual men and women by saying that they are "fundamentally different" from straight men and women. People are alot more complex than the person they are attracted to and have sex with. Through this statement, Ettelbrick narrows humankind to strictly sexual beings as if sexual expression is the only thing that defines / unites / or separates human kind.
Like we have discussed in other classes, I believe it's all about choice here. Whether or not gay people are for or against marriage rights, gay marriage should be allowed so gay couples can at least have the choice to marry or not.
Like Lindsey, I was struck by Ettelbrick's comment that lesbian and non-lesbian women are "fundamentally different." I feel the similarities between women, regardless of sexual orientation, are more significant than the differences. What is it the Ettelbrick is suggesting is so drastically different? While certainly an aspect, to me, sexual orientation does not define one's whole identity.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with Eileen. She writes in her post, “Though marriage is a time-honored tradition that once celebrated only certain people, that is, straight people of the same race and religion, with time, the institution has changed, as it should, to meet the needs of the people.” Marriage has changed a great deal throughout the years to accommodate our society and culture. Couples of different religions and different races get married with no issues; the institution has changed to accommodate them. But, if the institution has changed to accommodate these couples because they are more present in our world today, why isn’t the institution changing for same-sex couples? It’s wrong and unfair. If two men or two women want to get married, then they should be allowed to. Who are we to let a couple not get married? It’s time for the institution to change yet again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eileen, there is nothing wrong with gays wanting to get or getting married. Ettelbeck is as bad as the people that keeps gays from getting married because she is trying to tell people how to live their life, and that is what i believe is the problem. There are too many people in this world that try to make people act or live "normal," if people can look past the all of the little superficial things, the world would be a much better place.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with everyone posting before me, but can in some way understand what Ettelbeck is saying, especially as someone writing in 1989. It is important to distinguish between accepting difference and assimilating, which I think is what Ettelbeck is getting at. Still, I think that gay marriage is an issue of equal rights, and by allowing gay people to marry, we are not imposing main stream culture upon them, but rather giving them back the rights that they have deserved all along.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must advocate for all lifestyles and relationships, but I think the way to do that is by first dismantling the institution of marriage. Similar to the strong connotation the word feminism carries, the term marriage will always evoke certain associations, mainly those of men marrying women. If we did away with the word or, at least, the concept, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike would find themselves creating a new word and understanding of what it means to be in relationship with someone.
ReplyDelete