In the “Same Sex Marriage FAQs” article the author answers two very common questions: why do same-sex couples want to marry and why aren’t civil unions enough? The author answers the first question by outlining a myriad of reasons same-sex couples want to get married. They note it is simply not fair to deny some couples the right to marriage along with a whole list of other ways in which same-sex couples who are not married struggle. It is not only that a couple should be allowed to get married if they are in love, but also a slew of other things as well. Same-sex couples pay higher taxes because they are not eligible for the federal tax benefits and struggle with everyday issues. They, for example, cannot use the health insurance of their spouse, cannot be granted hospital visitation, are forced to pay estate taxes, are not granted family leaves from work, and many more. The author continues on to argue that civil unions are not enough. They argue that they are in no way the same thing and that they should never be referred to as such. Marriages are recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government, whereas civil unions are not acknowledged by the government and are not applicable in the one state where the couple receives the civil union license. Couples united through civil unions are also not eligible to receive the thousands of federal benefits that married couples can, which goes along with the first question of why same-sex couples want to get married.
Ettelbrick’s article was unlike any other article I have ever read. She begins by noting that marriage is an institution, one that people feel the need to join in order to be accepted. She notes that marriage will not liberate lesbians and gay men (but will constrain them) and “attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity” (306). The argument that it is only about rights does not do enough for Ettelbrick, but instead she argues that we need to deal with the underlying issues of our society. Justice will not be gained simply by allowing gay men and lesbians to get married, justice will be achieved when lesbians and gay men are accepted and integrated into our society despite their differences. They do not need to be accepted only by getting married and assimilating into that cultural ideal, but by being accepted for who they are. She continues on to argue that our legal society and the emphasis we place on marriage in our culture and in our government is not okay. By simply allowing gay men and lesbian women to enter into this concept of marriage nothing will be changed about our society and they will only be perpetuating these, as Ettelbrick argues, incorrect ideals and perceptions.
In the article by Andrea Vaccaro we get a different point of view. We get a point of view of someone who is actively involved fighting for marriage and equality rights for gay men and lesbians. She describes how she got involved in this active fight in high school and how she has continued this through her life. She mentions that even the small things, like putting up signs around school that were torn down by the end of the day, helped some people. She continues on to describe the numerous leadership roles she took on in college and how she became involved in them. Ultimately she ended up backing down from some of the positions due to time constraints, but notes that perhaps the thing that forced her to withdraw was the apathy that all fellow group members displayed in each and every group she was in. Vacarro ends the piece by describing her “wedding” (civil union) day. It was one of the greatest days of her life, but very bittersweet. By joining in a civil union she was reinforcing the second-class stereotype of a civil union but realized there was no other option. She wanted to be committed to her girlfriend and couldn’t any other way than this “second-class” partnership.
No comments:
Post a Comment