Same-Sex Marriage

Paula Ettelbrick poses a very intriguing argument in her essay. Basically, she contests that, “Until the constitution is interpreted to respect and encourage differences, pursuing the legalization of same-sex marriage would be leading our movement into a trap; we would be demanding access to the very institution which, in its current form, would undermine our movement to recognize many different kinds of relationships.” Marriage, as an institution, has historically served as a major patriarchal force. Wives have always been viewed as the inferior and subservient partner to the husbands, who have been characterized as the bread-winning foundations of families. As Ettelbrick explains, lobbying for same-sex marriage is an effort to emphasize the similarities between same-sex and heterosexual couples. And doing so inevitably reinforces the patriarchal system that is driving the institution of marriage.

While I understand Ettelbrick’s point, I feel that she is biting off more than the LBGTQ community can chew. She argues that having rights doesn’t automatically lead to justice. History has certainly shown the validity of this statement. However, I believe that Federal legalization of same-sex marriage would be a positive step in achieving the justice Ettelbrick yearns for. There have been many arguments against same-sex marriage, none of which are logically viable. Ettelbrick maintains that legalizing same-sex marriage would strip her community of its identity and culture. I believe that the same-sex population in America would be able to maintain and independent culture if that’s what they choose. Ettelbrick assumes that assimilation into the marriage culture is inherently bad, but it’s my opinion that same-sex couples could help weaken the patriarchal stranglehold on marriage.