Response Post March 8

The Frequently Asked Questions about same sex marriage were facts I was mostly aware of previously, but I am always surprised to see how shocked others are to learn them. I think this is largely because a vast number of people, especially at Colgate, are in the privileged group that is unaffected by these holes in the civil rights set up by our government. This is one of the largest obstacles to the advancement of the homosexual civil rights movement; the “mainstreamers” have little motivation to correct problems that do not affect them. I think most people who read this would not hesitate to admit there is something inherently wrong with the way things are, but very few people would be motivated to do something about it. This is an age-old problem, but this generation has a new twist on it, I think. Our technological era allows us, if we choose, to have access to more information than ever before. It is obvious that there is no shortage of errors and injustice in our government and in our society – and even more in the world beyond our borders. Today’s technology provides us access to any and all of those issues, which allows people to participate (exclusively, if they so choose) in the movements that most affect them personally. It may sound like a strange argument, but I think that our mass exposure to the world’s problems might spread our efforts pretty thin on any one of them.

Ettelbrick’s argument also comes as no surprise. I know a large number of people (mostly straight) that claim to be against the institution of marriage for various reasons. It only makes sense that the same argument could exist in the homosexual spheres. I understand that people can love each other with out being married. Heck, lots of people who aren’t married love each other a lot more than people who are married. That’s obvious. It is a shame that our society puts so much pressure on those people to take part in a traditional institution solely because it is the norm. However, the structures of our society that Ettelbrick disagrees with exist for purposes beyond upholding norms and excluding “non-mainstream” people from being accepted. For instance, the visitation policies at hospitals exist for the safety and comfort of patients. I hate to make the argument that “the line has to be drawn somewhere,” but I can see why in this situation a spouse is an easy “yes” and a lover of any sex without a recognized title becomes a bit more complicated. It is for reasons like these that I think legalizing marriage should be a goal of the homosexual civil rights movement.

I agree with Ettelbrick that it will not be the end of the struggle. One of her main points seems to be that legalizing marriage will give the illusion that homosexuals have reached equality, and that will suck the wind from the sails of their progress. She essentially fears the pseudo-success that Susan Douglas talks about in Embedded Sexism. This is definitely something to be aware of, but not a reason to hold back from allowing gay marriage. Ettelbrick’s main concern is that legalizing marriage does not allow for more diversity, it just assimilates more people into a narrow idea of “normal.” She makes a good point but I think her own argument defeats her. People should be allowed to show their love in whatever means they feel appropriate and should not be pressured by society to conform to one concept of acceptable love. But the fact of the matter is that marriage is one of those options; it is one way in which people should be allowed to choose to celebrate their love. For that reason, I think, gay marriage should be legalized. I don’t think it will hinder the acceptance or celebration of difference; it just provides people who deserve to express their love in any way they chose with one more option.