I found Ettelbrick's argument to be poorly supported and some of her particular claims have no basis. Ettelbrick claims that same-sex couples naturally want marriage because it is a right, but that does not equal justice. Her example for such a claim is white firefighters in Alabama who want segregation so they can keep their jobs. This in no way compares to the situation with same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages could be classified as justice because they offer equal rights across gender and racial lines. The firefighter example is asking for personal benefits of keeping their jobs but at the expense of discriminating against minorities and prohibiting them from those jobs.
I do agree with Ettelbrick, naturally, that marriage is a long-standing institution. Surely the institution represents certain stereotypes and provides equal rights in terms of government. However, her claim that same-sex marriage being legalized would remove their identity seems preposterous. Not all heterosexual married couples have the same relationship. Not all of them reflect male dominance over their wives, in fact I can think of several examples that reflect just the opposite. The existence of same-sex marriage would simply provide homosexual couples with equal taxing and other governmental rights. They, like heterosexual marriages, could develop whichever relationship suits them-whether rooted in dominance by one spouse or equality.
Understandably, homosexuals have the right to a distinct identity and culture, but I just do not follow Ettelbrick's argument that legalizing same-sex marriages would remove such. Rather, it will probably bring them closer to equality in terms of civil rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that Ettelbrick’s argument is flawed only because it failed to remain focused on the issue of marriage. She quickly expands from criticizing marriage as an institution to commenting on social injustice in general. While American society clearly has many issues that need to be resolved before our ideals of justice and equality are realized for all citizens, many of her tangential arguments have little to do with marriage as an institution.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, she does make a few good points regarding marriage. First, marriage has been transformed form a social contract to a legal one as well. In this way, it has indeed forced many gay and lesbian couples to fight for the privilege to be able to get something which they really shouldn’t need. Marriage has little to do with the love and respect which Ettelbrick says is lacking in many relationships. Perhaps a solution to this would be for all peoples to be able to make a civil union with whomever they want, regardless of gender, and have marriage as a completely separate and purely social institution.
Yet as a political scientist, I think her criticisms of rights and laws are somewhat idealistic. It is true that laws and rights do not create equality, but this is true of any issue. Rights and laws create legal equality which is completely different than social equality. Social equality can only be changed by changing our values and the way we think and treat each other, while legal rights and laws are clearly important benchmarks in establishing what those values are.
I agree with both Dan and Jack in that Ettelbrick seems to stretch her argument beyond a reasonable boundary, and held similar reservations when reading the article myself. One problem that I feel surrounds the issue of same-sex marriage and that makes the topic such a heated debate is that marriage means something different for every different couple. Different races, cultures, religions, and other groups in society treat marriage differently, which only leads to greater confusion surrounding this topic. I think Jack's proposal for distinct separation of marriage and civil union is a promising idea but I also think that people should not be barred from either one. Just like how people should not be barred from certain rights, they should also not be forced into marriage just to simply hold these rights.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I share a similar viewpoint with what you expressed in your post. Ettelbrick does offer some valuable information within her article but I question her position with regards to same-sex marriages. Marriage should be a right offered to all adult couples. The option of marriage should not be limited to or based upon sexual preference. I agree that offering same-sex couples the right to marry will not alleviate all of the tensions that currently exist but I do believe it will be a step in the right direction. When a certain group of individuals are not given the same civil rights as the majority of the population, equality does not exist. While reasons for marrying vary amongst couples, it should still be an option available for all couples. I am also a proponent for life long partners, heterosexual or homosexual, to have the same legal benefits as those offered to married couples. When one examines the high incidents of divorce, it becomes evident that many individuals may have taken these vows because of reasons other than commitment. While marriage rights should be allotted for all individuals, societal norms should not be the driving force behinds couples’ decisions to wed. Marriages should celebrate the love and commitment of two individuals.
ReplyDelete